The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1873-12-20
RAILROAD DECISION.

Judge Leland has just made decision Of
some importance in the Bureau Circuit cour,
touching the constitutonality ogthe Railroad
Law of 1871. The case was that of the PEG
pie VS.. Neal Rugglcs, and involved the fol
lowing facts: On the 18th Of March, 1873
Morgan A. Lewis got upon a passenger
train of the c. b, & Q. railroad al Buda to &C
to Ncponset. He had no ticket, but rendered
the conductor 3 cents mile for the distance
between the two points. This was declined
and the regular fare demanded, refusing tC
pay which, the conductor attempted to pu
Lewis off the train, but was unsuccessful
| Lewis had the conductor arrested for an as
sault, and he was tried before a justice of The
peace and fined $40, whereupOn he appealed
to the Circuit Court The only question in
volyed was the consiimtionality of the law Of
| 1871, fixing the maximum passenger rate al
3 cents Il mile.
Judge Leland Gas reported by the Bureau
| HerAO decided as follows;
| That he had no doubt but that n railroad
charter was u contract (hc thOughtnO lawyer
| like all other contracts the law of the land
in force at the time of the making Of the con
tract entered into and became part of the
contract The common law of the land al
the time of the making of this contract, was
that common carriers should transport freight
and passengers at reasonable rates. Railroads
were common carriers, then the road was
bound TO carry Lewis at reasonable rate
The power to fix what was reasonable must
be vested somewhere. Courts might possess
it, and such questions had usually been REFER.
ed to the courts, but it would result in a null.
tiplcty of suits, and endless litigation, if
every passenger who was charged more than
reasonable fare, had to resort to the courts.
Railroads were not only common carriers,
but were in some respects, public institutions,
were created for the public good, could only
be created, or exist by the exercise of the
right of eminent domain, q right belonging
only to the sovereign power Of the state and
to be delegated only for public purposes,
Hence they must be regarded as qudSj public
corporations and therefore subject to lcgis-
lativc control, so far as might be necessary
for the welfare of the public and therefore
he was of opinion that the power to deter
mine what was Il reasonable rate, must rest
in the law-making power.
Upon me question, lHW lhV act OF 1911
violates that provision of the federal consti-
tuition, which prohibits state from passing
any law which mpairs the obligation of con.
tracts, his honor said, the contract was to
carry passengers at a reasonable rate, until
it is shown that the rate fixed by the law, is
an unreasonable one, the court cannot decide
tina. the contract is impaired, or that the law
is unconstitutional. This would be a ques.
ton OF fIct depending upon evidence, but un,
I'll that fact is shown, the law must be held
constitutional.
Finally, while admitting there was doubt,
he was of the opinion that the law must le-
sustained. And knowing that by thus decid-
ing, his decision could be reviewed, while,
if decided otherwise, the case could not be
taken to the supreme court, he felt justified
in affirming the judgment.