New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-06-03

THE FARMERS AND THE RAILROADS.
T. ia the custom of some newspapers of quer-
ulous and uncertain temper, to complain "heh
tbov arc dissatisfied with any statement OF ours,
tbot " Horace Greeley would not have said that"
which, considering that these same Journals
were perpetually finding fault Win MI uree-
LEWIS opinions during his lifetime, does not
seem 70 MS either forcible or consistent. The
Free Trade organ, for instance which Is now
trying to persuade the Western farmers that
thew can get cheap freights and curb the
mower of the railroad corporations by coming
down to a revenue tariff chooses to pretend
that TIE TRIBUNE abandons tho principles
of its founder when it advises the
farmers that they cannot fight the rail-
roads successfully on the plan they have
adopted in Illinois. The pro rata law passed
by their Legislature was declared unconstitu-
tional in the Supreme Court Of the State, and
the farmers proposed to mend that defect by
turning out of office the Chief Justice who
had rendered the decision. Constitutional or
not constitutional, they said, we will have the
law. That was the meaning of yesterdays
election in Illinois. Sooner or later law will
prevail. If Judge Lawrence's views were
|
nails. If they were not sound they are certain
to be reversed.
| In Minnesota case has just been decided
which may afford the farmers guide for future
experiments in law-making. The right OF the
Legislature to fix maximum rates OF freight
has been affirmed by the Supreme Court on
appeal, after two years litigation. 1t was
argued by the roads that their charters were
contracts with the State, and that they In
Guided by implication the grant of authority
to charge tolls. These tolls were not limited
by the charters, and could not afterwards be
limited by the Legislature without violating
the original grant, and thus contravening the
article of the federal constitution which pro-
hibits any law impairing the validity of con-
tracts. In other words the Legislatures had
surrendered to the companies the right
to fix whatever tariff of charges they
pleased, and could not resume that
right by subsequent enactment. 1t was the
doctrine argued by Daniel Webster in the
Dartmouth College case, and sustained by the
decision of the United States Supreme Court,
that ga grant in its own nature amounts to
can extihguishment of the right of the
"grantor, and implies contract not to reas-
"sert that right" A Legislature cannot re-
peal statutes creating private corporations;
and off it cannot repeal them altogether"
said Mr.. Webster, of course it cannot repeal
"any part of them, or impair them, or essen
"t italy alter them, without the consent of the
" corporators.D In the Illinois case the rail
roads took the same ground.
The Minnesota Supreme Court admits the
soundness of this argument so far as it rep
resents charter to be an inviolable contract;
but the Court holds that in granting the
franchises the State did not surrender its right
to regulate their use. "The State, we assume"
says the decision, l"has conferred upon the
defendant the right to make some charge, 1. e.,
"to take some toll. If this right cannot, in the
mature Of things, exist along with the
" right of the Legislature to regulate its
"use and limit the amount of tolls the
defendant may take, then of course the right
"to control is gone. But is obvious that the
"two can coexist, G. g., a right simply to take
"sone toll can be exercised to its fullest extent
"under law fixing a maximum rate of toll,
"for in taking such maximum rate some toll
ais taken, and the extent of the right is only
"to take some toll" This is not directly in
conflict with the Illinois decision, for the point
at issue there was not the right to limit rates,
but the right to forbid determinations. 1t
would seem to follow. however, that if the
Legislatures have retained the power to do
one they have the power to do both.
We do not suppose the question will be
allowed to rest here. The controversy will be
carried into the Supreme Court of the United
States, and will there receive the thorough
examination which its importance deserves.
But meanwhile the farmers may remember
that whether the courts hold for or against
them they have one remedy against extortion-
ate charges about which there is no dispute.
"A private corporation" said the United
States Supreme court, in Terrett V. Taylor,
20 Cranch, 49,, "created by the Legislature,
"may lose its franchises by miSuSer
cor nOnuSer of them and they
"may be resumed by the Govern
"ment under judicial judgment upon quo
tDarTanto to ascertain and enforce the for
fixture. This is the common law of the land,
" and is a tacit condition annexed to the crea-
ton of every such corporation" Whether
Onerous and unreasonable determinations, and
| tolls which tax industry out of existence, may
not amount to a misuSer in the sense of the
| law ia a question which WeyshOuld be glad to