, 1875-11-06

THE RAILROAD LAW.
The long-e1pected opinion OF tho Suprom
Court OF Illinois in the case Of the Nailroa.
Commissioners against tho Chicago, Burlins
ton Il Quincy Railroad Company does not
VIC regret to say, determine the qucstio,
whether the Ilallroad law is or is not const;
tutionnl. Tho suit was brought by th,
Attorney General to recover the pcualt;e.
prescribed by law for violation Of tho statut.
Of Mny 2, 1871. The declaration contnipct
nineteen counts for e1tortion and ono for IN
just determination. Tile Haitroad Company
pleaded specially. a demurrer to the rloas
WAS fled, which tho Court below sustained.
A trial was had without Jury, and, the Court
finding tho defendant guilty, fino Of 1,oM
was imposed. The caso came before the
Supreme Court On this record.
Tho statute provides that if my railroad
corporation shall charge or collect "moro
than fair and reasonable rate of TOLL" the
sa'ne shall be deemed guilty Of extortion It
further provides that ii my railroad corpora-
ton shall make any "unjnst discrimination
| in its rates or charges" it shall be deemed
guilty, etc. These are tho statutory deani-
| tons Of the crimes. The net. however, fur.
thor provided that the Iailroad Commission
cra shall make for each of tho railroad corpo-
rations schedule Of reasonable maximum
rates OF charges for tho transportation OF
freight, passengers, and carr; and that such
schedules, in all suits brought under the net,
must be taken in all courts rs p,7nsa f;.eie evi
denco that the rates therein named arc rea-
sonaolo maximum rates. In the declaration
it was alleged that tho sum demanded By the
Company exceeded fair and reasonable
toll" Tho question was, Did this descrip-
tion cover the statutory oGsnse sufficiently?
The Supreme Court, reviewing the statute as
n whole, decides that tho statute provides
how reasonable rates may bo ascertained;
that it provides that tho rates in tho schedule
Bhall be held to bo fair and reasonable, and
that a disregard Of tho schedule rates is a
necessary element Of the offcnge defined bY
the statute. Until this schedule OF ratcs was
established tho Court decides there conld
have beon no liability for unreasonable and
oztortionate charges The schedules were
intended to fix, so far ns the Legislature
could, the rates Of railroad charges, and to
punish tho takiug in excess of tho fixed
rates; al tho saluo tiuo tho schedules were
maae 1nercly 7'riaaa 5dcie evidence Of what
were reasonable maximum rites in order to
avoid the objection mado by the Court in
previous case, that it waa not within tie
power Of tho Legislature to mako my fixed
rates conclusive Of wAat Was fair aud reason.
nble. Therefore the Court held that, to con-
atitute the offenso intended by tho statute,
the ratio taken must be in excesy OF tie
schedule rato, aud it was necessary to ayor
TINT achedulo of rates had been established,
md TINT the defendant had received cou,peu.
Eation in oxcess Of these rates. The scied-
nle is more than ovidence,-it Is fact upon
which tho action rests. Accordingly, the
counts, one to nineteen, inclusive, were do
fcctiyc.
ln the matter Of the twentieth count tho
declaration WAS that the Railroad Company
transported from Quincy to Macomb "oue
CARLOAD OF horses. commonly called ponics,'
distance Of TO miles, charging therefor the
Sann of Sa8.3f, or at the rate Of 48 cents q
mile, and about tho same timo transported
from Macomb TO Chicago, distance Of .oa
miles, "ono car.load Of horses" charging
therefor only the STUN Of $780, or ut tho
rate OF ~ centa a milo,-thereby uniugtly
discriminating, eto. Tho statute defines thia
oaonso to DO the charging greater amount
OF compensation for my distance than il at
the sumo tinao charged for tho transportation
IN tho same Distance or like quantity of
freight of tho ga,no Glass over creator dis
tahee Of tho same ruilroasl.
Ihe Court holds that the count does not
Present stats Of facts which shows viola
.'on OF tho statute; IL docs not aver that the
1fe'ents weso of the Same class mud like GUAM
ivy no aVermont IL male as to tho number
os weight OF tile animals, nor Of tie sizo or
enlsH OF cars containing them, etc, Tile
Judgment OF tue Court below was therefore
reversed.
In this Judgment Justices SHELDON. But,x.p
cnA1d, McAL11srEH, and scorr couc,,r 1,nt
1auges AlcAtLlsTEA and scovr, while concur.
ring III tlle Judgment Of tho Court, tlsyentea
from the reasoning Of tho opinion 10 fur NJ Il
1nay be said to ASSUME tho coustitut,ona,ty
Of the law.
Judges WALKER and scuor.s,gzp bc11 That
the arcrmenh In tho doolaration iu this covo
wcss sufficient; that tho schedules vera mat
ters of eyilenco that tho o1onscy wcro a,l.
n'tted ana that tlls judgment be,ow sLou,d |
haso beeu affirmed.
There tho Court leavcs tie on,c,tio,
"Acthcr tho Inv be constitutional or rot In. |
not hecn ieter1niuctl, tl,o loc;sion tn,,,;,o. |
11slas'Yely Ta on tho sulliciency OF the pleading
''o ussun'eht Ut tho Court does not affirm the |
aonatttntonnlity of tlo lsaiIroaa law It ,,oe<
A0'''aeh '''s' loant ut Ill. Ths opinion, how