, 1872-12-09

ration, bnt 10 tne PUBLIC, lAsss ~ nAaA us1sb Q
might be impracticabe, if the Legislature should
so reduce the rates that no surplus would re-
main to the stockholders, after defraying the
current expenses OF operation. To say, IN an
gwer to this position, that the Legislature will
never exercise such unreasonable control, is Sim
p1y begging the question IS to the existence Of
tie power claimed. On tho other hand, to say
that this defendant, under this charter, has tho
power to charge whatever itpleases for passenger
fares, without regard to their being reasonable or
unreasonable. fair compensation or extortionate,
is q power that equally deny. To license o
corporation to commit axtortiou in it's charges
il what tho Legislature has no power to do,
They could only grant the right to charge req
sondJle fares, and 30 the charter must be con.
the Legislature might create m in'peTlnns IN
in,perio, but it would be to say That it might
license imposition and extortion, to be limited
only by the ararice OF the corporation.
The act in question either assumes that tho
defendant has no right to fix rates at all, which
the charter or it assumes that the rates therein
provided for are reasonable, and the rates fixed
by the defendant unreasonable and extortlon-
ate.
ture must be presumed to have nee
essarily Investigated the, JUSTICE, lea~ t,lo
charges Of defendant, and determined from owl
dence, or otherwise arbitrarily determined, that
their charges are unreasonable. In e1ther case,
coDceding that corporations are to be judged
By the same rules as individuals, defendant has
had it's rights adjudica:ed upon without IN op-
portunity for hearing, which is IN violation OF
The Bill of Rights. Says Mr.: Justice Skinner, IN
tiye power extends only to the mailing Of laws,
aud in it's exercise is limited and restrained by
lie paramount authority Of the Federal and
State Constitutions. It cannot directly. reach
the property or vested right Of the citizen by
providing for their forfeiture or transfer to Rn-
other without trial and Judgment in the Courts,
for to do so would be the exercise OF . power
which belongs to another branch Of the Govern
ment. and is forbidden to tho Legislature
Aside from tho obvious improperly Of per-
provisions OF impair it's terms without the assent
Of the other, the question whether, in gwen
caac charges are reasonable or tho contrary is
essentially judicial question. The rights Of
the defendant, as matter Of law, depend upon
particular facts to be ascertained, and, in every
such case. investigation must precede decision,
and both arc Judicial and not Legislative func-
tons.
Whether this act be valid, as against the de-
fendant, depends not upon the consideration
the question whether it can be made to appear
that the rates so fixed are reasonable, and that
those fixed by the defendant are not SO for if
those fixed by the defendant arc just
and reasonable. there can DO no justification for
Legislative interference. But I maintain that
the question cannot be determined by any arbi-
trary act of Legislation, but it is q question Of
Law, to be determined by the Courts upon facts
admitted or proved. The admitted facts in this
case are wholly client upon this vital question
It cannot be determined as E matter OF law with
out e1trinslc proof either that tho sum rendered
TIES reasonable, or that that demanded and paid
was extortionate. I am not authorized to cay
which is the case from the eyidence-my private
T. H. f. /, f,t1vf, 111xyS
nothing to the purpose. The law must be de-
clarcd upon tho facts Of the given case, and not
upon the whim of any Court. The defendant
has the granted right to fix it's rates Of toll; it
has done So The rate fixed in this case cannot
be Judged per Sc extortionato and, until it Is 60
ground the Legislature can interfere
Judgment must, therefore, 60 for the defend
Gat, and it is accordingly so ordered
Some Remarks on the Decisicn.
TO the Editor Of Tie Chicago Tribune:
s1R: The opinion Of Judge Wood, Of the Kan
kakee Circuit Court, ID tho case Of Stephen r.
Moore against the Illinois Central Railroad, must
necessarily provoke much discussion, declaring,
as it does, the dangerous doctrine that railroads
arc priUdte corporations, possessed OF certain
ssvested ights' By reason Of having accepted
charter from the State, by means whereof the
State has Lost al control over them, and the ere
atod cornorat;on he's heoonoe SUPERIOR to the
1890. ~1,;oh orea+oa y Tha dacs;on holds that
section 12 Of artcle II of the Constitution Of 1870
is imperative and void TINT tho 3,000, 600 peo-
pie of Illinois, while acting in their sovereign
capacity in recognizing . State and adopting an
organic law had noright to declare and say, 'The
General Assembly ehall, from time to time pass
laws establishing reasonable maximum rates o.
charges for the transportation of pasBengerf
and FREIGHT On the different railroads in this
etata -, al tbat +ba General Assembly wos
oeale a1u 'nA' 1u7 o-a- w.
powerlcss to accomplish purpose "nen' IN q &c
cordance with the will of the people and the
commands of the Constitution, it passed the act
ss+af1;sh;ne a ss ss7eesonah1e maximnm ratio o1
=s@aue s...~4:oz ~ ...saa,,..aso ~
ehe1ges 1o1 tne TRANSPORTATION ~, " passets -, ~
railroads IN this State Yhe decision 1s TO tle
effect that this act is unconstitutional. although
the State Constitution expressly makes it the
duty Of the Legislature to pass such law; and
further that the Constitution itself is anconski
tutional It is repetition Of the often-told tale
and railroad legislators. that the charter Of tht
| Compauy is q contract with the stnte, which
nloces the Company above the State