, 1872-12-10

The decision Of Judge Wood, Of Kankakee, in
the case involving the constitutionality OF the
legislation OF this State on railway freights and
Illinois, but elsewhere, and will bring up again
question Of exceeding perplexity, to which
some Of the ablest minds OF the present age are
directed As regards the mere question Of law
involved, We think that Judge Woods decision
is right-that is, it is in accordance with uni
form and unbroken line Of precedentH, at the be-
ginning OF which is the broad principle that a
contract once made cannot be depart
ed from by one Of the parties with
out the consent OF the other. We
hope it will be long time before any different
rule is established, for, when contracts cease to
be binding, and when Courts cease to enforce
them in the terms and manner that the parties
understood when they entered into them, there
is no substantial foundation for commerce to
rest upon, and the bonds which hold society to-
gether are loosened. As applied to the case in
question, it is easy to Bee, as Judge Wood OBJ
serves, that if the Legislature may fix one rate
Of fare on railway, without the consent Of the
owners Of such railway, and without any judicial
ascertainment Of what is reasonable fare, it
may fix any rate that passion or demagogism
can suggest. II it may enact three
cents per mile without these essential
prerequisites, it may enact one cent or
guish the property. It would be far better for
the State to avail itself Of its eminent domain
powers, condemn the offending railway, pay its
owners the real value Of their property, and
operate it as public work, than to violate prin-
ciples of Law which the experience Of ages
has proved to be necessary to well-being or even
tho existence Of civilized society.
At the same time, the common law remedy for
excessive railway charges pointed out by Judge
Wood ia too cumbersome, circuitous, and
costly to afford 8 practical solution Of
the problem. In involves in each
case jury trial, With right Of appeal. A favor
able decision in one case does not benefit the
public generally, because no two cases are ex-
actly alike in every respect. What constitutes
reasonableB charge for given service to-day,
may constitute an unreasonable charge to-
morrow, and uice cersa. There must be
gwifter way Of dealing with the subject than
this and that swifter way will not be found in
the sort Of legislation which Judge Wood 30
pointedly condemns. It ia nearly two years
since these R1pshod laws we're passed. The
railway companies made no opposition to them
while they we're pending. They believed that they
would be declared invalid in due time, and that
whether declared invalid or not it would be
cheaper to take their chances in the forum Of
public opinion than to make contest in each
successive Legislature. The old and well pay
ing roads believed with good reason that they
could stand laws that the new and weak ones
could live under, while the latter believed them
eelves to be protected by their very weakness.
At all events, they could offer no resistance. So,
by common consent, they all kept their lobby
agents away from the Legislative halls, and stood
in readiness to take anything that might come.
The thing which did come WAS worse than worth
less, if Judge Woods decision is sustained, as
ne think it will be.
11ere are In068 WHO tH1nA tuIt IL ID ouly uec-
essary to elect new Judges in order to make this
species of legislation stick It is only necessary
in due exercise Of the ballot, to put men upon
the Bench who will upset contracts and oVerturn
law, in order to bring railway charges under
legielatiye control. We fancy that there will be
q pause before any such immoral doctrine is put
in force by State which has once voted against
repudiating its debts and re trust that all
other means Of meeting and overcoming the
evils complained Of will be exhausted before it
finds any respectable advocacy. These means
o4 oxlaa11Etnd -acarcal4