The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1874-01-22
IMPORTANT DECISION.
A State Railroad Law Passed
ON by the United States
Supreme Court.

e western Railway Company under the Raj
:. road law of the State of Iowa, and whic
n was taken up by the Railroad to the Fe,
y eral Court:
: The Chicago & Northwestern Railwa
/ Company, plaintiff in error, VS.. Dariu
Fuller. In error to the Supeme CouI
of the State of Iowa.
, Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the opiu
: ion of the Court
, This is Il writ of error to the Suprem
Court OF the State of Iowa.
The case lies within a narrow compass
and presents but a single question 70
our consideration. That question is no
difficult of solution. The second sec
ton, Chapter 1863, of the laws of tn,
, Ninth General Assembly of Iowa is a:
follows:
." In the month of September, annual
ly, each railroad company shall fix lis
rates of fare for passengers and freight,
for transportation of timber, wood and
coal per ton, cord, or 900 feet per mile
also, its fare and freight per mile for
transporting merchandise and articles OF
the first, second, third, and fourth grades
of freight; and on the lst day of Octo-
Der following shall put up at all stations
and depots on its road printed copy of
such fare and freight, and cause a copy
to remain posted during the year. For
wilfully neglecting so to do, or for re-
ceiving higher rates of fare or freight
than those posted, the Company shall for
felt not less than 500, nor more than
5000, to any person injured thereby and
suing therefor"
The plaintiff in error was sued i'm the
proper District Court of the State for vi
/ olations of these provisions. Among
other defenses interposed the Company
| plead that the statute was in conflict with
/ the commercial clause of the Constitution
Of the United States Fuller demurred
to the plea The Court sustained the de-
murrer and the Company excepted. The
case was afterwards submitted TO a Jury
The Company prayed the Court to in
struct them that the act was invalid by
reason Of the conflict before mentioned.
The Court refused, and the Company
again excepted. A verdict and judgment
was rendered for the plaintiff. The Com
pany removed the case to the Supreme
Court Of the State, and there insisted on
these exceptions as errors. That Court
affirmed the judgment of the District
Court, and the Company thereupon pros
ecuted this writ Of error. Was there
error in this ruling?
She Constitution gives to Congress the
power to regulate commerce with for
eign nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes"
The statute complained of provides:
That each railroad company shall, in
the month Of September, annually, fix
its rates for the transportation of pas
sengers and Of freights of different kindsf
That it shall cause a printed copy of
such rates to be put up at all its stations
and depots, and cause "A copy to remain
posted during-the year;
That q failure 10 fulfill these require
ments, or the charging Of a higher rate
than is posted, shall subject the offending
Company to the payment of the penalty
prescribed
In all other respects there is no inter |
ference. No other constraint is imposed. |
Except in these particulars the Company |
may exercise all its faculties as it shall |
deem proper Nodiscriminaton is made |
between local and Interstate freights, |
and no attempt is made TO control the |
rates that may be charged. 1t is only re- |
quired that the rates shall be fixed, made /
public, and honestly adhered TO- In this |
there can be nothing unreasonable or err
roneous. The public welfare is promoted |
without doing wrong or injury 10 the |
Company. The Statute was doubtless
deemed 10 be called for by the interests Of |
the community to be affected by it, and it
rests upon "A solid foundation of reason
and Justice.
1t is not, in the sense Of the Constitu-
ton, in any wise a regulation of com
merce. 1t is police regulation, and as
such forms "a portion Of the immense
mass of legislation which embraces ev-
erythng within the territory of State
not surrendered to the General Govern
ment, all which can be most advantage
ously exercised by the States themselves.
Gibbons V. Ogden, 9 Wheat, /.
This case presents a striking analogy
to prominent feature in the case Of The
Brig James Gray V. The Ship John Fra
zier, q How, 1874 There the city au-
thorities of Charleston had passed an or
dinance prescribing where a vessel should /
lie in the harbor, what light she should
show at night, and making other similar
regulations. 1t was objected that these
requirements were regulations Of com
merce, and, therefore, void. This Court
affirmed the validity Of the ordinance.
In the complex system Of polity which
exists in this country the powers Of gov
eminent may be divided into four classes
Those which belong exclusively to the
States.
Those which belong exclusively to the
National Government.
Those which may be exercised concur
rently and independently by both.
And those which may be exercised by
the States only until Congress shall see fit |
to act upon the subject.
The authority Of the State then retires |
and lies in allegiance until the occasion for
its exercise shall recur.-Ex-parte Nc
Mel, Is Wall, 240. Commerce is traf-
hc, but 1t Is much more. 1t embraces
also transportation by land and water, and
all the means and appliances necessarily
enp.oyet IA carrying Il on.-2 Story on
the Const., Secs 1861, 1862.
The authority to regulate commerce,
lodged by the Constitution in Congress, is
within the last division of the powers Of
government above mentioned. Some Of
the rules prescribed in the exercise of
that power must from the nature of things
be uniform throughout the country. To
that extent the authority itself mnst ne
cessarily be exclusive, as much 80 as if it /
had been declared so to be by the Consti-
tuition in express terms.
Others may very well vary with the va
rying circumstances of different localities. |
Where a stream navigable for the pur-
pose of foreign and interstate commerce /
= xI,o%~,x I'll l,vx& H. L. r