The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1877-03-14

Is
LEGISLATURES CAN REGULATE RAIL-
ROADS.
The Changers Triumph in the Supreme
Court.
The U. S. Supreme Court at Wash
ington on the lst instant decided the
long pending cases relative to the
power of the legislatures IN Illinois,
Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota to reg
ulate railroad rates. The decision IS
against the railroads, and the syllabl
are as follows.
Peck. ct al. VS.. The Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad company ct al,
and Lawrence ct al. VS.. Paul and 9TH
ers, and the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad Company's appeals from the
circuit court for the Western dis.
trict of Wisconsin. These suits pre-.
sent the single question Of the power
Of the legislature of the state Of Wis
consin to provide by law for the max
imum of the charge to be made blythe
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad
company for fare and freight upon the
transportation of persons and property
carried within the state or taken up
outside and brought within or. taken
up inside and carried out. The decis.
ion is that until congress acts in refer
ence to the relations of Interstate
commerce it is competent for the
state to regulate the fares of railroads
so far as they are of domestic concern.
This company, it is said, has domestic
relations with the state and incidentally
these relations may reach beyond the
state Until congress undertakes to
legislat efor those who are without, the
state of Wisconsin may provide for
those within, even though it may indi-
rectly affect those without. A.
frmed.
The chief justice delivered the opin-
ion.
The Chicago, Milwaukee and St..
Paul Railroad company VS.. Ackly ct al.
error to the circuit court for Wiscon-
sin. The only question presented in this
case is whether the railroad company
in Wisconsin can recover for the tran.
sportation of property more than the
maximum fixed by the statute by
showing that the amount charged was
no more than reasonable compensa.
ton for the services rendered. The
decision is that as between the COM
pany and the freighter the maximum
of the statute is limit of the recov.
cry for the transportation actually
performed. If the company should
refuse to carry at the prices fixed, and
an attempt should be made to forfeit
it's charter on that account other
questions might arise which will not
be anticipated at this time. For the
goods actually carried, the limit of the
state is the limit of the recovery.
Affirmed,
The chief justice delivered the opin.
ion.
Stowe vs.. State of Wisconsin, error
to the circuit court for Wisconsin.
The only question in this case
not decided in the case OF
the Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
Paul railroad company VS.. Ackly,
just decided. is as to the effect upon
the rights of these parties of the char.
ter of the Milwaukee and Waukesha
railroad company passed by the Terri.
torial Legislature of Wisconsin In lS47
This provides that on the completion
ofsaid road or any portion of the track
not less than ten miles, it shall be law
full for the company to demand and re
ceive such sum or sums of money fol
the passage of freight, of persons anC
property as they shall from time tt
time think reasonable. This, it was
claimed, gave the company charter
right to fix it's own rates of fare ane
oh tn ind 0i01 n lot
mination as to whether they are rea
sonable. The curt affirm the view Of
the supreme crt of the State on thi!
question that the charter was accepted
and the corporation organized raan.
months after the adoption of the con
stltution and admission of the State in
to the Union by congress-. Previou
to that time it remained a naked prop
osition. For this reason it is hell
that it's acceptance after, the organiza
'tion of the State so far as it is con
tract makes it manifestly contrac
with the State. Affirmed. ,
The Chicago, Burlington and Quinc,
Railroad company vs.. Attorney Gener
al and State Treasurer of Iowa. an ap
peal from the Iowa circuit. In Till
case it is said, the railroad companie
are carriers for hire. They are inco1
porated powers in order that the,
may the better serve the public il
that capacity: They !. are, therefore
engaged in public employment affect
ing public interests, and under the de
cision in the case of Mum & Scott VS.
The people of Illinois (the principa
case) subject to legislative control a