Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1873-06-14

rlot with those OF others. Inc right 7 , us'
the railroad AS public highway IL public
right in the preservation and regulation OF
which the public are interested.
Upon the second question reserved, MT.
Bste urged that the only possible constrne.
tlon OF the section is that which secures
right of recovery to the plaintiff.
Numerous authorities were cited In sup. |
port of the principles contended for, and
Mr. Gordon followed In a long aud agle
argument, holding that the law under
which the judgments were obtained Ia an
unconstitutionality. and read from various
acknowledged authorities In support OF his
position. He contended that the iourth
section OF the law contravenes the tenth
section OF the irst article Of the Federal
Constitution in that II annuls the contract
entered into between this State and the p.
W.. y. X. II. 90. He argued that unless the
Court declares section Of the act uncon-
atitutionAl the railroad company would be |
crippled to such an extent that II could |
hardly recover from the effects OF such an |
unwise law. The Legislature has no more |
rightto interfere with the railroad company |
than II has to interfere with any private |
citizen IN the discharge of his business: II
has no more right to say what the p, W. \
h. X. X. 90. shall charge for passengers and
freight than 1t has TO say what the price Of
beef. bread OF any other article oil 1000
shall be. The company only claims inhi,
vidual rights, and this y is entitled TO- and
therefore Is only bound to submit to the
common law. which II does.
The question of whether the railroad
company shall charge high or low prices for
passengers or freight Ia finally Judicial
aud not legislative question, and 10 con
sequence can only be determined by the
court.
Under the old law the railroad company
charges for a distance of one or two miles
cents per 100 lbs. Of freight, and from
baltimore to Delmar 1853 miles, II charges
81 cents. At this rate the company would
only be allowed to charge 81 one.hu ndredths
of cent for 100 lbs. of freight for dis
/ lac nh
where II now charges 81 cents. They must
/ do one or the other, and he believed they
| would wisely accept the last named ngure
| so those who made the law and the people
| Of the State would be the losers, not the
railroad company. He said that where one
class Of freight now only costs $3.50 per ton
between two stated points, II would cost
under the law should the railroad company
choose to exact 1t. ISL
He closed his argument by declaring the
law iniQuitiously unjust, and the Court ad'
iOurned until o'clock tomorrow morning.
| when Mr.. Lore aud Mr. COmegys. the first
tanned gentleman for the State and the LAT
ter for the Company, will continue the
argument, and the constitutionalitv Of the
measure will probably be decided IN the
afternoon. w. >. =.
DovER, June l2th.-The Court of Errors
and Appeals again met this morning. and
at nine o'clock argument In the new rail-
road tax law case was continued.
Hon. Joseph r. Comegys counsel for the
railroad company, took the noor and Tor
constitutional and therefore null and void
The argument was conceded TO be the pest
effort OF Mr.. Comegys' life. and as thorough
review of constitutional law as was ever
made In the State. He said
The counsel on the other side placed the
, power of the Legislature to pass the law in
question on one OF two grounds he claimed
that IL was either included In the police
power of the States or that It was author
lied by power residing in the Legislature
to regulate common carriers. He contenueu
, that Il cannot be included in the police
power of the States That power does not
concern the business of men except so tal
! as that business interferes with the health
! or safety OF others. The same power can
[ be exercised over corporation by the STATE
, | NJ can be exercised over an Individual
True, the State can exercise police poweri
. over railroad or any other company; thai
e Is, II can regulate the speed of trains, car
Q require signals of danger to be displayed
Z cause trains to stop before proceeding owe
a | bridges or crossings and demand that car
: shall not be overloaded. But you can onll
I go this far. and therefore cannot regulate
n the business affairs or internal arrange
meuts OF the railroad company OF othe
. Nv the original charter of the company
L from which the speaker read, II was re
II served to the company the right 70 reguist
actment, you can regulate one business, yol
can another. and establish the price to b
u paid for -four. grain, and all kinds OF pre-
d duce You will lind that the rule can b
z applied to everything II 10 taiiroao eonnpa
The law as II stands will do more harr
10 even than | claimed for It. Under II, II IN
or railroad company should issue eommutato
tickets 1t would. within the intent an
AZ meaning of the law, be discrimination
hi aud ~ such the company would De pun ishe
u. to the extent of ten fold the difference
ei price between the regular and eommutatio
d. Heket Again, YOU would have to pay tu
Sc price for the transportation Of your en-
as dren, for the fourth section OF the law unu'
il consideration says distinctly that ulscilhl
~ nation will not be permitted. Further, 20
w. l can have no more excursions, Tor the raj
10 road company are forbidden to reduce the
III fares to one point without making co
Gu responding reduction to all other place
p along the line of their road.
re | These the speaker contended, are only
N. ! few of the unjust and intolerable constru
Al lions that can and will he placed upon u
~ statute. The principle upon wmeh the "a
VI Is based Is one Of the most dangerous u
re- speaker could conceive, for II followed
lse and caried out Legislature hostile to u
lie interests of any incorporation could utter
an destroy IL by enacttng and enforcing LAY
81 REGULATING the internal arrangements
AT such INCORPORATION and placing Its schedu
Sc, Of prices so low that inevitable ruin a
me destruction would of necessity soon folio
There ia nothing in the business OF
n ! common carriertha the Legislaturelcan T.
- ulate, except so far as its general pol
nus regulations may apply. you cannot est
Ut. fish the rates to be received by comm
raj carrier; that belongs to competition. IL
me railroad company, or other common CARR
-. discriminates unlustly against the poop
W. or charges them Hnreasonably high pri'
up for transportation, II can be remedied a
of adjusted in our Courts, for all common C
ose riers are amenable to the general law a
The under it exhorbitant exaetions can be
covered.
ned kr.,k haf,uaau the State and the railrC
tiff company and was unconstitutional, for Il
ieA- in direct violation and contrayenes
ON tenth section OF the first article Of
on Federal Constitution, which positiv
on, prohibits parties to q contract from v
Else iating their agreement;
MT Cnmegys concluded by saying, the
led. W. \ b. X. r. Co, Is not the creature OF t
To-, State alone, but Of Pennsylvania
non Maryland also, and Il It were possible
TO regulate its tolls 1t could only he dope
ltes the Joint action Of Its three creators.
lion Attorney General Lore. on behalf OF
inle State then argued that the law WAS c
r. stitutionAl, but said 1t was very Ia
ACT, affair and loosely put together. The fsu
nm section of the act, he believed, aimed al
are determinations, especially where they
re- directed at our own people, and though
road simply related to persons travelling
III distances, and was meant to establish
thls equality. He contended that the %
RUE must presume the law 20 De eonstltuuo
and IL they could harmonic II v
hart the provisions of the constitution
81. was theii duty to do SO. That
"ao State Legislature had as much rlgh
II Is regulate the prices to be charged Tor
Ora carriage offreight and passengers as II
y as 10 regulate the rate Of interest, he had
IONS, the slightest qoupt' anu ~ his NOAH,
= 10 A railroad company Is qudH-publc
isla- poration, and therefore comes within
eign scope OF police regulations, aud becaui
?. To This he believed the Legislature had
par. exclusive right to fix the prices to
charged for transportation by such corr
e is- tons. II the Legislature has not TINS I
state then It is within the power Of rail
ure is company to 30 discriminate against {
attn. in this State and in favor OF one in anC
nnon that II could utterly destroy the hrst
uPG build up the Latter. Tho state gave Z
/, III Up, W. i b. X. r. Co NO unlimited pc
Court but simply made 1t the creature or age
is In the State. He did not believe If the
, tho was properly construed and enforced
- railroad company would be injured.
Dmeti This closed the argument IN the case
II 10 after a few miAutes consultation Cha
all lor Bates delivered the opinion OF the 9
In IL, He said there were many reasons VII
n the case should be decided at once, but II
I, WAS the slightest shadow Of doubt III
10 =, minds the decision would have been
l. poned As the fourth section OF tn
"A mt was contrary TO the tenth section o
y 80 first article of the Federal Constitt
my noticed above, he did not hesitate TO dc
IL null aud void. There was no doubt
.,. contract existed between the stat
Tbis the p, W. & b X. X, Co, and thai
,oi,ats contract wou1d be violated If the
re section of the law was enforced. II
,arfer. cessary to protect this contract ana 10
i s,,,'.s tiN section under consideration,
s,nar contrary to the constitution,
~, nj lie declared null and void
VI rng the decision in the Dartmouth O.
sn.H case there has been no doubt OF the In
making " " ms - cornoratoIs Of the p
trol % II. II. X. Co. carries with it the right