The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1874-04-04

q Court of Vermont, and is the author o
. several legal works that are recognized al
! standard by all lawyers. An article writer
by him and published in II recent number o
the american Ldn Register on the prevailing
railroad agitation therefore justly commands
attention. We find in an exchange the fol
y, lowing synopsis of it:
y If" says Mr. Redield, "the railways are
: allowed to pursue the unreStraincd course now
entered upon by them the expenses OF trans
portation will ultimately absorb all the profit;
of Interstate trade and manutacture.' This
is a startling assertion, coming as 1t does from
one whose familiarity with the working OF
our railway system is unquestioned since there
is scarcely what lawyers call RAILROAD case
1.-The facts of which he is not familiar with
having made Railroad Law specially, as he
saws himself, for almost the period of the
life of a generation and having written Il
standard work on the subject. Yet, Mr.. Red
l field, with all his opportunities to form cor
rect judgment in the premises, puts this re
suit down rs "entirely certain" lie says
| moreover, that railways are entlreIy beyond
all healthy competition; that whatever com
pctOn there is among them centres in few
important points, to which trcights and fares
are merely nominal; that the profits lost at
!
way-transportation where there is no com
pctition. He agrees with the Westminster
Recieic that the talk about the competition of
railways is "loose inconsistent verbiagc, and
! irrational can't" and asserts that there are
| facts relating to the management OF railroads,
and the charging of fare and freight by them
which, if properly collected aAd presented,
would "sct the whole country in blaze" He
mentions one instance in new England known
to himself, where the charges for transporta-
ton care made, by some device, to double the
advertised rates. and thus render the products
valueess TO the consumer rs well rs to the
producer" He says that the rates arc some
times tjourfold the charge for tfahspouion Of
the same commodities len or even twenty
times AS far, in the same direction and over
the same line, and the undcrcharge III one IN
stance covers the Ovcrcharge IN the other,
These words are taken almost verbatim from
Mr.. Redteld's article; and we feel very GER
tain that the former Chief Justice OF the
Supreme Court of Vermont did not pen them
to excite thcil.wll of the community against
railway corporations, but to call attention to
a great and growing evil and show the neces.
sitv of some appliance to remedy. But to
what extent may the State Legislatures or
Congress interfere in the matter? Mr.. Red.
field is supposed to know some little law, ana
we will let him answer
All railways may be divided into two
classes: /. State railways, or railways lying
wholly within single State. =. Interstate
railways, or railways lying partly in one
State and partly in another. Has the legisla-
ture of State within which railway Who'll.
" lies the power to regulate its trcights and
fares? 1t plainly has where it has reservedto
itself that power. But how is it when the
Legislature of the State has not rescrveI that
power for itself? Can it, in this latter case
regulate the freight or fare charged by arail-
road company without infringing that proyl-
sion of the Constitution Of the United States
which declares that no State shall pass law
impairing the obligation of contracts? Chief
Justice Redfeld is Of opinion that it may:
tor the reason that, in spite of its charter,
he railway company is only common car
rier, and that the common law applicable to
common carriers, "to carry for reasonable
conversation, and make no unreasonable
or unjust discrimination among those who
employ them"is applicable to railroads.&c. Mr.
Redfeld quotes some eight or nine cases IN
which this principle has been affirmed. 1t
is clear, then, that, so far as railway lies
within State, it may be regulated as to its
tolls, its fares, and freights, by the State
And how as to Interstate railways? Judge
Rcdiicll shows that SO far as these are con-
cerned, Congress, although It does not eXei-
else it, has, under the Constitution, the power
to regulate them. The individual States have
the power to charter, buld, or control rail
wa VS. only within their OWL limits. When a
rail way leaves the State in which it origin
ates, it ceases to owe allegiance to ii. Into a
neighboring State, it cannot, even as corpoE-
alton, carry one of its franchises. This doc
trine has been held to be the law by all Amer
lean Courts. \ corporation may, OF course,
transact business in a State other than mat IN
which it was incorporated, but only subject
to the laws of the State into which il has en-
tered, Such being the condition OF our law
in regard 10 corporations, whether railway or
otherwise, il may be asked: How are we
going to regulate the fare and freight charges
of Interstate railways? There are only TWO
ways Of doing It. Either Congress must 90
it, or the forty independent State Legislatures
must agree on asysem OF interstate CONNER
cial intercourse. Congress is vested by the
Constitution with unlimited powers over com
merce among the States; and this power is
exclusive of the power Of the States upon the
subject. Now, the regulation of commerce
between the States, as has been decided by
the courts, includes the regulation OF me
means by which it is carried on, whether
means OF navigation or passage over land
when such passage is necessary to the com
mercial intercourse of the States, whether
rivers, the ocean, or railroads The enact
ments of Congress can reach everything af
fecting the conduct of business of through
trains upon Interstate railways. Fare and
freight upon such railways are, according to
Mr. Redfeli, wholly under the control OF
Congress- AMI this control begins from the
moment that goods or persons destined 10 be
carried across State lines are taken IN charge
by the railway company, and not merely
when they have been carried across the dlvld-
ing line of the two States. The opinion OF
Mr. Redficld on this latter points in harmony
with the decision of the Supreme Court OF
the United States in the Daniel Bull case re-
ported in 10 Wallace, p. J5l There Is no
constitutional restriction whatever on the
power of Congress to control fares and treightS
ON interstate railways; and, as there is no
such restriction, its power TO regulate them
cannot fairly be raised.
The argument that such regulation OF fares