, 1875-10-29

TIE nIouT CT STATES TO CONTROL RAtLRoAD-
FARES.
NAsntsnroS. u. C.. Oct. 2G.-Thn following
rnsr was argued III tLo Hnpremo Court on Mon
day:
CAfs No a0.-Thc 1Tinona 4 81. Peter Railroad
Company rs. DlaIe ct af.-AppcaI from the Su-
promo Coust OF Minnesota. III tlo first Of
tle Granger caHos reached. aud presanta the
question whether the railroad conpau7 NAV,
under its charter, tlx snch freight cbargea as It
p.sall doom rcahooablo compensation for trans
poitatan, dist egardiuG all suoaequent legislation
Of tho State Of Minnesota (t,om Which, az 4 Ter.
r.tury aud State. the chatter IL dc7'ved], teud-
lug to rostlct tho rateH Of compensation, aud
particularly the acs OF March. 1871. regulating
tho carrying OF freight and passengers in
tile Ntate. The act eatab!ishes certain
rates. and declares they Hhal not bs exceeded,
imposing uron any company which bhail Violate
1t fine OF 81, ,00O or forfeiture Of itB clartar
and franchises. All liueB of railroads arc de-
cured 10 be public highway, aud the State u.s.
sun.es tho soyereigp right to require thu
companies to conf ly with it, ethodue OF rates,
decarcd to bo tho maximum Of sesEonab!p rates,
TIE poaition OF lilo railroad company {backed
by the railrons generally ts that tho different
charters under which the Company 10 organized
~ Aen passed by tho Legislature Of either tho
Territory 1r htats Of Minnesota, md accepted by
tho Com any, and hctetf upou by 1t, 6eclno coll
tracts betwron tho lerlitoEy Of tho State and
Tho COMPANY. ., sud could pos b. H., impaired
luz protselel by tho Constisutiou OF tha United
StatcH. .ttlt! 1t IL ha tl,Rt 10 change tho ruling
of tho court. OF last scsort. so Az II deprive the
| stncktlo:tela of the Company OF the protection
| OF tuo Constitution to Which these couits de-
cIart,i III III to he cnttlet! wl,ou tleY nyos4ca
| their neney in the enterprise, aud upon ibe
fa til Of "blch their nonoy waa thus invested. Is
contrary to those fundamental principles ol
III law. Az raid BY c4,of-Jnst:oe Tanos, in tho
c.se OF tho OHIO Llfo lnsurn,lco and 1iuas Com.
phny vs. Deeois, .' II tho contact, whom inade.
was valid hy the laws OF The state. ~ then e1-
pounded BY all The apartments ot ita Gssern..
1u4siee tho validity aud obligation can
us: ass Of tho Legislature Of tho sssto or
| aecsson u itB cau1ts altering thu construction
cf Tic ;aw." II il IL ather.lse. say Tho Com:
III ratlrunhs beiotlrs to tho Stain md nut to tho
Ut ,ckho!}lsra; aud It will not be lung bsfore tue
state will usuFp Authority over all corporations,
Of rhateSor character, III which Private capital
| ~ cmplnt.l Tor usea OF public character.
Tho counsel tor tho State maintains ttiAt the
leading Eugilsh and American cAaes RhoN that
tho 1t Ant Of tho ilk.ch,se 10 eject aud MAINTAIN
pu,!ia establishment Of auy description. -
| q
atute OF pub.4o highway, y,-daea not carry will,
It 1paor Ia demand feos from tho public Oh
account Of lta cnjoymeut Of tho fsciIl.
ties afforded by aucl establishment; that
| wuen the establishment authorized to ba
o,c,trd md n,hintained 1s4tn tue nature
OF q public highway, power to demand compen.
aatlou for passa4a over Il must be III o1pro.s
terms. and tho rates n1cd by tho gr4nt, Or thu
concession viii be VOID. and no rowor to ley,
tolls VII be created aud that what4 tho right ta
loyy tolls il granted, the coucessl'n must 10 H.
terI,ret"d strictly as<sst the H 1zntse 81 that
tho Language used will beaf two meanings tht
Que mods favorable to the public Bh4ll DO adopted
! 1t IL then sad that thus power {Anl It wss X
hold belo~) was not expressly granted, ant
therefore does not exit In the c&ss OF Ihls road
IL Ia also conteudta that the Legislature Ut |
sta:o has no authority aud 20 power to part will
| itB coutsol over persons aud thlnxs wi;lin thl
state, ~ claimed by tho Conpans.
| Mtssss. i. y. Cuok. VI ham H. Evast*, E. "
6touX4sou. J. ". Corey. aad William, Mitchell