Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1877-03-08

CAN REGULATE RAIL-
7 : ~. ee4
The Grangers Triumph in the Supreme
- Court.
The q. s. Supreme Court at Wash.
ington on the 1st., decided the long
pending case relating to the power of
the legislatures of Illinois, Wisconsin,,
Iowa and Minnesota to regulate rail
road rates. The dicisiOn is against
railroads, and the syllabi are as fol-
lows: -,
Pick ct al. vs.. The Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad company ct al,
and Lawrence ct al. vs.. Paul and
others, and the Chicago 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
c0nsin to provide by law for the max
imum of the charge to be made by the
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 it, 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 re-
lations with the State, and incident.
ally these relations may reach beyond
the State. Until Congress undertakes
to legislate for those who are without,
the State of Wisconsin may provide
for those within. even though 1t may
indirectly affect those without. A.
firmed.
The Chief Justice delivered the
opinion.
The Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
Paul Railroad Company VS.. Ackly ct
al, error to the Circuit Court for
Wisconsin. The only question pre-
sented in this case is whether the rail-
road company in Wisconsin can re-
cover for the transportation of proper.
ty more than the maximum fixed by
the statute by showing that the amount
charged was no more than reasonable
compensation for the services rem
dered. The decision is that as he.
tween the company and the freighter
the maximum of the statute is limit
of the recovery for the transportation
actually performed. If the company
should refuse to carry at the prices
fixed, and an attempt should be made
to forfeit its 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. AT.
irmed.
The Chief Justice delivered the
opinion.
Stowe, vs.. State of Wisconsin, error
| to the circuit court for Wisconsin.
The only question in this case not de-
cided in the case of the Chicago, Mil
waukee and St. Paul railroad company
vs.. Ackley, just decided, is as to the
effect upon the rights of these parties
of the charter of the Milwaukee and
Waukesha railroad company passed by
the Territorial Legislature of Wiscon-
sin in lS47. This provides that on the
completion of said road or any portion
of the track not less than ten miles, it
shall be lawful for the company to de-
mand and receive such sum or sums OF
money for the passage OF freight OF
{ persons and property as they shall
/ from time to time think reasonable.
This, it was claimed, gave the COM
pany charter-light to fix it's own rates
, of fare and freight, subject only to ju-
= dicial determination as to whether
| l. T1,o nn,1rt afs srvo
the view of the supreme court of the
q Estate on this question, that the charter
;, was accepted and the corporation or
: ganiZed many months after the adop'
e ton OF the constitution and admission
it of the State into the Union by Congress
> Previous to that time it remained :
= naked proposition. For this reason II
u is held that it's acceptance after thu
e organization of the State, so far as il
is a contract, makes it manlfestly a
e contract with the State. Affirmed.
THE IOWA LAW.
. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
If Railroad company VS.. Attorney zen
,, eral and State Treasurer of Iowa, al
IL appeal from the Iowa circuit. In this
y case it is said, the railroad companies
n are carriers for hire. They are moor
;, porated powers in order that they may
e the better serve the pubic in that ca
!, pacity. They are, therefore, engaged
It in public employment, affecting public
r interests, and under the decision II
j. the case Of Mum & Scott vs, The Peo
/ of Illinois (the principal case) subjec
~ !. to legislative control rs to their rate
,, of fare and freight unless protected
h by their charters. In the absence o
j. legislative regulation on the subject 0
N fares the courts must decide for it, a
y they do for private persons when con
" trOyersies arise-What is reasonable
le but when legislature steps in, and pre-
ID scribes the maximum of the charge, /
m operates on the corporation the SAM
20 as it does upon individuals engaged II
l. similar business. a uniform rate o
IN charges for all railroad cOmpanle
IL might operate unjustly upon some. !
e es was proper, therefore, to provide 1
50 some way for adaptation of the rate
in to the circumstances of the ditferen
a. roads, and the legislature in the eN
re ercise of it's discretion has seen tit
a. a. do this by system of classification, AN
M at whether this was the best that coul
s. be done is not for the courts todecld'
". Affirmed.
r nc The chief justice delivered tn
is opinion.
lie THE MINNESOTA LAW.
lot The Winona and St. Peter Railroa
W. company VS.. Blake ct al, error to tt
ne supreme court of Minnesota, and N
nd a, Mcrllath, receiver, VS.. Colema
~ ~ error to the circuit court OF the dl
an trict of Minnesota. In the form
he case it is said that the road was by i
,ut charter bound to carry, when call'
ID ID upon, as a common carrier, and char
ttpt only reasonable rates. These are
~. cidents Of the occupation in which
ace was authorized to engage: The ca
ion is held to fall within the decision d
tor cided at the same time and stat
above in No. "a. 1t is held that u
question is the same, and the declsl'
- oa;rroo od IN bnt1, cQQpc