New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-31
The Railroad War in wiscon.tn.

o'o"OU OUJOOe VI COuITOALuS inc C2rlu on
passengers and freight over railroad lines
within the limits of the State. This act
was approved by the Governor March IL,
1874. 1t provides for the appointment of
three railroad commissioners who are to
regulate these tariffs. By proclamation of
the Governor the act was made to take effect
May l, 1874. On the twenty first instant the
railway commissioners issued a circular fix
ing the rate on freight and passengers, spe-
cially exempting through rates, and warn
ing all parties against violation.
The two principal railroad corporations,
whose lines extend across the State, the
| Chicago, Milwaukee and st. Paul and the
Chicago and Northwestern railway CON-
! panies made preparations to resist the law.
The Chicago and Alton railroad openly
brought suit in the State court. The road
transferred the case to the United States
Court, which was q rather embarrassing
flank movement. The railroads combining
procured exhaustive opinions of Hon. w.
NJ. Evarts, of New York, and Hon. B. R.
Gusts, of Boston, which condemned the
law known as the Potter bill as unconstitu-
tional. Thus strengthened the railroads
proceeded to show their contempt for the
commissioners, the law and the Governor
| by increasing instead Of diminishing their
rates. On this Governor Taylor, May 81,
issued a proclamation, in which he says:
The corporations above named have ar
| ranged their tariffs without the slightest ap-
parent regard 10 the classification and rates
prescribed in the law and prepared and pub
| lished by the board of railroad commission
ers. In many cases they have even increased
| their rates for transportation of freight
above what they were when the law was
| enacted and became of binding obligation.
They are now exacting and receiving
| rates which the Legislature, after much
| consideration and the patient hearing of
| able counsel and officers representing their
| interests, has, in effect, solemnly declared
| unreasonable, unjust and extOrtiOnate, and
| they boldly proclaim to the authorities and
| people Of The State, and to the world, that
they will continue 80 to do, any law Of the
State, not approved by them, to the con-
trary notwithstanding. In a word, they
have set up another law than that of the
State, and have made obedience to it the
supreme duty of all their corporate servants
and the present necessity Of the whole
people.
1t can not be suffered that any law which
the Legislature has enacted and the execu-
tive approved shall be put in allegiance and
treated with open disobedience and fragrant
contempt by any person, corporation or COM
binatiOn of corporations, on the plea OF I'M
reasOnableness, or upon any plea whatever.
Such sufferanoe would tend to a subver-
sion of all legal authority.
7 1t must be admitted that railway COM
panies are necessary to the prosperity and
development of the State, and that in the
discharge of their honorable obligations to
the public, they are entitled to the graft
tude and positive and uniform protection of
the legislative authority. In this matter
the people will make no peace with enemies,
but they seek no war with friends. While
they are willing to encourage to the fullest
extent the development of the railway
system of our State, they can not submit to
manifest injustice, nor permit the abuse of
chartered privileges.
In conclusion he calls upon all citizens to
obey the law in every instance and particu-
lar Of business dealings with any railroad
company of the State, and especially the
companies named; to pay as a traveller no
higher fare than the law prescribes; to pay
as a shipper or receiver of freight no higher
rates than the law prescrbes. and that if
any cum in excess of legal rates should be
extorted from him by any agent of any
such company, he notify, with all conve-
nient dispatch, the district attorney Of his
county Of such violation of law.
THUS stands the controversy at present.
No one of the issues have as yet been passed
upon by any tribunal, but the carefully
prepared opinions of the distinguished at
torneys have almost exhausted the subject
Mr.. Evart's opinion is very lengthy and
able one. In it he confines himself to the
proposition that the law in question takes
the property of individuals without making
any compensation therefor, and that the
provision of the constitution of the State
of Wisconsin which reserves the right to
repeal or modify the charter of corpora
ton can not be construed to cover case of
virtual confscation.
His argument in brief is that the charters
OF the companies purport to be perpetual,
and authorize such compensation as they
may deem reasonable; that reservation
of the State must be found in the contract
itself in order to repel the implication that
it impairs the obligation, supporting this
view by People vs. Bachelor, 50 N. Y,
lao. The clause of the Wisconsin constitu-
ton that franchises may be altered or
repealed by the Legislature at any time"
can mean no more than that they may be
terminated or their further exer-
else modified or burdened with conditions
if their further exercise is pursued by the |
He says the extent of the |
right is:
First-Ahsolutely to terminate the fran
chse, thus liberating the grantee from fur |
State the franchise in it's plenitude. This
would leave the property of the corporation
to be wound up under the protection of the
the law and the courts, and |
,ast upon the State, if the railroad service
was further desired within the borders of |
Wisconsin. the duty of providing for such
service, at the public expense, or renewing
he grant of the franchise to some new
grantee.
Second-To modify the granted franchise,
n its future exercise, either by reducing the
privilege or by burdening it with such con-
litions as the State should zee fit to impose.
n this case, the grantee would be free to
lccept or reject the modified or burdened
privilege. Its contract exposes it, we may
oncede, to lose its privilege, at the pleasure
# the State, but did not bind it to involun-
airy and uncompensated servitude to the
'tate as a task-master. If the grantee &C.
epts the reduced or burdened service, a |
lew contract is made and new obligations
ssumed. If the grantee rejects the prof
cred franchise, thus reduced and burdened,
he State may retire from the new exaction,
r wholly terminate the franchise.
On the question of public highway, he
avs of the act nf March 10 1874.