Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-07-13
LEGIsLATIvE CONTROL OF RAIL
IlGAAn ATEG

ROAD RATES.
The new railroad law OF Illinois regu-
latiDg freights on the pro rata principle is
causing confusion and difficulty in more
ways than one. The railroad commissioners
of that State have decided that the law is
applicable not only to freight passing from
point to point within the State, but to that
passing across the State, as from Indiana to
Missouri, or New York to Minnesota. This
decision is clearly wrong in principle, and
cannot possibly be enforced. Under the
Constitution, Congress alone has power to
regulate commerce among the several
States" and in attempting to regulate the
freights on merchandise passing from one
State to another across her borders,
the Illinois commissioners assume q
power which it is very question
able whether they or any State have the
rig bit to exercise. But there is a strong
probability that the entire ques ion Of legis-
lative control of railroad rates is likely to be
decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States on issues growing out of the Minneso-
ta law on the sut jet. A little over two
years ago the Legislature of Minnesota
passed. law regulating railroad freight
charges in that State, and the Supreme
Court of the State decided that this law was
constitutional so far as it did not apply to
railroad companies which enjoyed charter
right TO establish their own toll rates. The
Southern Minnesota railroad is in the hands
ola Receiver, appointed By the United States
Circuit Court, at the instance Of the bond
holders, TO foreclose the first and second
mortgage bonds for nearly five millions of
dollars. The Receiver, Mr.. Charles Nc
IlrGtb, applied 10 the United States Circuit
Court at st. Paul for Instructions as to
whether he should obey or disregard the
State laws regulating railroad charges. The
question was invested with additional I'M
portance from the feet that conformity TO
the State law involved p reduction of the
earnings of the road, which ave already in
sufficient 10 pay the running expenses and
interest on its bonded debt, $4,000 per
annum. This question has not yet been
decided, Judge Dillon stating that
it was so important and the issues so
diversified that it would be q
work CT time for the court to prepare q
final decision. In theSmeanwhile it was
necessary TO give the Receiver of The South
ern Minnesota Railroad instructions as to |
his duty. The United States Circuit Court |
would hesitate to assume the responsibility |
of over-ruling State lsw which was still
further sanctioned by the highest judiciary
in the State. He would decline TO order
the Receiver to disobey the law, but at the
same time, be declined to order him to
obey it to the injury of the bondholders
ofthe road. In effect, the question
pending 3 final decision, was left
TO the discretion Of the Receiver.
The Judge took the important ground,
however, that the State legislation, so far
as it infringed on he contract rights of
threw the whole
solution Of the question upon
the Supreme Court of the Uni,ed States.
In the meantime test case against the
same railroad company has been brought
before the same Federal Court. Mr.. Cbas.
L. Colman brings suit against Charles Nc
nrath, Rsceiver Of the Southern Minnesota
Railroad Company, to recover s., 900 dam
ages for alleged oveC.charges and extortion
for charging higher rates for the transporta-
ion Of lumber than those established by
aw. Both parties with view OF obtain
NJ speedy decision waive AL ,echnicaH-
les, admit the questions o: fac, and waive
i trial by jury. The Receiver admits that
lie charged higher rates than were author
zed under the Minnesota law Of 1871, but
he denies that they were unjust or unreas-
Unable, unless made such by the mere force
# this act. The decision of the Supreme
court Of the United States viii be looked
or with much interest, fo7 this case will he
AIKEN to thst tribunal as speed " as POS