, 1870-07-15
STREET RAILROADS,
LcEali1 " of tho Collection OF Six
Gent Fares.
The Question Argued Yesterday Be-
fore Judge Blodgett.
Case Under Advixcmcnt.

fore Judge Blodgett.
Case Under Adyfxcmcnt.
Yesterday the important and Interesting case OF
Philip Il. DcdF1ck, OF New York, RS The Chicago
City Railway Company came uR IN me uhited
States Circuit Court, before Judge Diodsett, and
was argued at length. This Is an aclioh OF Tres
pass to recover damages because plaintiff was
elected from 9 car OF The company, be
refusing TO pay SIX cents fare fof slng!e
ride upon cEF, tender Of five crns hclng ilaae,
his entrance nio and point OF cerss ne!n9 " Witl,n
general issue. and secondly, jhstl!caton. uil,iet
IN act Of Congress assessing ~ per cent on me
gruss receipts n the company, with ths % EsGnt 70
upon bis single ticket 10 Tits plea pAlnuu tr-
INJURED generally The allegation on The one
part, was That plaintiff rendered Ave cents and,
BY the plea, the act OF Congress was seF uT:
ME-. Robert Mesyey aptHared for tar platnun
tblr s. ". Fuller as amc1is ruyiss}, on lie olher
side were McssrE. Hitchcock and H0udy.
ARGUAEET OF Mr., nERvET.
Mr. HcrreF stated substantially rs followS: Ine
sole QUESTION presented, Is whether the defendant
has right TO charge any passenger TIC sum ~ M slx
amount which he ciatms the company hal q right
to demand. The compauy ciAIms tlIc right, %
the contraEJ. u charge cent In addition 70 tn
ptRer 0f the company Is g1F:n by chnricr, to lie
exercised I'm such manner and upon such terms
and conditions, and with such rights aud nrsi- r.
Sea M ~ ae sw OF was any paseG
.es 14 Of Fserns ~, and II pg5on;s g5s 3 Of Y
OF May. lsa9- which provided tnat the defendant
may uss certain streets and then tia. the rate Of
except wheu cars or carriages shall be chartered
for special purposes In the case thetr Is no
claim OF unnecessary violence used In nicctinI the
oe i &c
companies accepted tho charter and the u,un!cipal
Win ihc pcrmissiau there granted. constructed
nance empowering them 10 do 80. cou-
ssms thai The fase e Be ex"s,ca Sy The
railway companies shall not cxceei nre csnt., atia
and operating Tie rosd 10 pursuance OF It, they
adopted that portion OF the ordinance as binding,
and 1hat,t formed contract between the railway
who may have occasion to use the means Of con-
veyhnce, 1rpm which the railway cannot depart
Hs cited the case Tne Gtty shcdgn ne a. M NJ
rene Court Of the United States, where It Is ex-
prcssiy decided that the ordinances OF the city
pany snd the corporation acting for tic citizens
he understood the defence to rest upon II
binding force OF acts Of Congress, passed in 1851,
upon the gross receipts Of the corporation,
but provides that au such persons, companies
ctc., as were thus taxed, should have the right to
Of fare, whenever their liability might commence,
any li1nitaton which might exist by law or by
agreement with such person or company which
the contrary notwithstanding. But this he Oh
jected was Unconstitutional! as impairing the Oh
legation Of the contract OF the company With the
cided case OF Hepburn :. Gr1swould. TThe legal
tender dectston.) -S.....
But Congress had gone further than to pass, q
aoun. y ta4aon npose 3D. tie amoau to- o
to he allowed, oue-eigbth Of cent to be aided to
the fare. By subsequent enactment, made IN
to any single fare shall amount only to fraction
Of one cent, then the company liable to TAX OF
~ per cent may add to the fare one cent IN lieu
Of such fraction. This Is the clause under which
tho railway justified and 1t raises the sole ques-
ton In the case. Assuming that the ordnance
was contract to charge only five cents for q
provision Of the constitution-she express proEi-
sion that no mans property should be taken from
law, as wei as the provision than no mans prop
erty should be taken for public purposes without
compensation.
sustained as an Indirect means Of collecting
lawful tax from the passenger, the railway COM
pAny being made the agent for the collection; but
BE- sg Wien The fwag
,horzed ITSELF In violation Of its contracts, to tnke
seyen-eighths Of a cent further from the passeu-
ssDs s t. e ae the
! In principle, having NO reference to the sum to
be exacted. It was Legislation dep1ivIn1 the cfti-
zen ot MS property without process OF faw, Just
he supposed 1t would be claimed that, the con-
tract being made IN 1859, 1t called for payment