, 1873-07-07
THE TRANSPORTATION QUESTION.
Tho minnesota FEnilrond Tariff Law
FscfOrc tlio United States Court on n1l
ArrNHft f.u4H.

Agrpod Cnse.
From tbs 81. Pani J,rtss, Ju,ys.
A tost suit has boon brought it,-@tne Unltod
stutos Circuit Court by Charles +; Coln,an
orn Minnesota nailrond Company, with a Wow to
secure il possible d,1ring this torn OF tho Court,
O iut'ical determination Of tho question whother
tue statute Of thia State regulating the Iatos Of
II e9 o s{ha Uns L ss y%a aa'. @ eh tao
tor OF tho Southern Minnesota lsailroad
Company Ia oxnctly similar to TINT OF
tho Wnona St. peter, in respect Of
containing no express provision that tho COM
and chhrgos Tho corporation naintainod that
this right wns IN implied and osaontiaI part
Of ita franchise. Tl,o State Supreme court,
howoycr, decided TINT thlH right was inherent ii,
the sovereignty Of tho State, and could not DO
parted with except BY express concession to tho
corporation, and that mono such having been
mhdo In TINT cnse, no contract between the State
and tho corporation was violated by the intor-
feronco Of tic Legislature. This oolman suit is
sourdnoaa Of this decision, as O question Of law,
In II court removed from the immo1ato intlu
cnce Of popular footing, which no elective
judiciary oan DO said to DO. Tho plaintiff al-
ber over tho 8. n. n. r. from Grand UroBHiug to
Winnebago City, and that the Rccoiver has
charged him higher rates for tho transportation
than tho lawful one n1cd by statute, und do
oyorchargea. The defondant admits all that is
charged III tho complaint, and answers furthor
TINT tho rates 80 charged by the defendant,
though In exccaa Of tho statutory limit, were ir-
Cd By tho Directors Of tho Company, before tho
appointment OF tho nccolVor, and that the
eamo aro just and reasonable rates,
aud the Company ia omitted to charge 1uat and
reasonable ratos by yrtuo Of its charter which is
a contrast between tho atato and tho corpora
ton, and protects the Company from, any fogis-
lation impairing Its vostoa rigEta-and furtIor,
TINT tho tariff rites prescribed by tho act Of
March, 1871, are unjust to the Company. and
arc not reasonable ratcs, but aro unrensonahly
low, and make unequal, unreasonable, and arbi-
ductions md manufactures Of tho State, and Tho
defendant ls advised and insists that said net is
in violation Of tho Constitution OF the United
stntcs, and Of this stato respectively.
It ia stipulated botweon the parties that q jury
is waived md that tho oa1so 1rny bo placed OH
tho calendar for trial at tho prcsont torn of court
without further notice. It ID also agreed botwec.1
tho parties that tho chargoB mado by tho Re-
ceyor woro higher than tho aot of March G, 1861,
allows; "but that ouch rates woro not lurcasou-
hblo, but were just, equal. and reasonable ,lulesH
mAdo unreasonable by tile more force OF Hnid
nct." a. Tint lilo tariff Of rates fixed by sad act
makcs arbitrary and unjust discrimination be-
tween tho di1feront products md manufactures
of this State. o. That tie ratoBHo charged by aaid
defendant were md aro tue eamo which wero
fixed and adopted by the Haid Company before
tho appointment of unid Recover, and before
the passage Of tho said act Of March 8, 1871. 4.
That the defendant IL aud WAS at the dues Of
sail transaction q common carrier.
There III thus no contest ovor any of the facts
OF tho case and tho caso gooB to the collrt strip
pod Of oil aide issues, for its determination Of
tho single important question Of law. Docs tho
act Of March, 1861, impair tho obligation Of any
and the corporation III violation Of the ConHti-
tuition OF tho United States