, 1880-06-13
Fast rains on the Eastern Lines
Begin Running To-Day.
A Slight Increase in the East
Bound Freight Traffic.
Decision in the Case Of the Illinois
Central Us. The People,
Cpholdlag Tho Power Of the Assembly to Pass
Laws to Prefent Eltortioly,
RAILROAD EXrORTI0Ns.

the Illinois Central Railroad Company VS..
The People, etc, an appeal from Douglas
County, was filed to-day in the Office Of the
Clerk of the Central Grand Division. The
Judgment of the Circuit Court Is affirmed,
and the constitutional power of the General
Assembly to pass the law of 1878 to prevent
railroad extortions and unjust discrimina-
tions is sustained, but the opinion is meagre
and unsatisfactory, and the action Of
the Court will undoubtedly cause spec
! ulation. This case was an agreed
one, and has been pending for
wears. The Court has been slow to decide it,
a fact to which the Railroad and Warehouse
Commissioners have frequently referred, and
when at last the Court was compelled to dis
pose Of tho case the decision was made in
favor of the people aginst the railroad COM
pany, and the case WAS put into the hands Of
Justice Dickey, who objectedIto the decisions
to write the opinion. The Justice has done
his work in very peculiar manner, and has,
In fact failed to construe the law
Of 1873 or any Of its perplexing
features The law provides that
u schedule Of reasonable maximum rates
shall be prepared by the Railroad Commits
and that such schedules shall be prilna facie
| evidence in our courts that the rates fixed are
| reasonable, but the Supreme Court has failed
! to construe Sec. and determine to what ex
tent the railroad companies of the State are
| bound by the rates fixed BY the Board. Judge
Dlckey writes against his convictions, and
| writes like lnan anxious to give us
| little information as possible. II an lii
rccted by tue Court to say, that Il ma
}}ority Of the Court think ~ is the way Justice
Dlckes starts out, and, after saying that the
reasons for this decision are presented aud
discussed in the case OF Ruggles VS.. The peo-
ple, he conlly remarks that the writer Of the
opinion did not concur in the decision in
the opinion was not written by one Of the
Justices who concurred in it may be sur
missed. The opinion is as follows:
Dickcy, J;--This is IN action against The 1lll-
ute Of this stute Of May !, ls;J to prevent cx
tortion and unjust discrimination, etc, Juag-
n.n5 n ~ wus rendered against the defendant for
Sl,u00, and defendant appeals. 1t B insisted
that the Court, in the dec luraton under which
Judgment was given, is defective. The case was,
BY agreement, tried upon agreed statc Of
fucts out in the record. to which is added the
following: II, upon the foregoing fncts. this
Court tlnds for plaintiff, it is agreed that fms
should tho Court find for defendant, the Judgment
is to be entered accorlngy." There WIS, no
plea filed 10th parties submitted the cnse on
tho agreed stutemcnts of facts under the
seventh count of the declaration. atm directed
ny the Court to say that majority Of the Court
think that the count ia Question ie sufficient TO
show clearly a violation uf the statute, and the
only Question as to the proprtcty of the judg-
Of the General Assembly to pass tho Law. 1t is
insisted that the act is n violation Of Il
contract between the State and the corporation
growing out of the charter Of tho appellant. The
charter provides that the Board uf Directors
shall have power to establish such rates Of tolls
fur tho Of tSs and
to time by their laws direct and determine, and
levy and collect tho snne for the use Of said
Is IS ' deeIared <''' the corporation Shall pay
sss} .5s s S"so ssFsTn
by appellants that the statute regulating these i
tolls is violation of this contract. This Do
charter. Without charter the corporation had
no capacity to do nny business whatever; no I
nIs 2wor to MAKE sontfets to sue or be sued
scribes the mode Of their exercise. a natural ;
person having permission to cross public high !
ons c1arap sna .
os aoa ef o oil {"r the 70
as he may from time 10 time determine, and
may levy and collect the same for his own use,
1le is not, howevGr, beyond or above the lcgis-
lntlvo power ot the STATE. TO pass laws prohibit
Ing aud Furnishing extortion, Aisd within reason
able limits to de'Ine what shall be- deemed ex-
yond doubt, a CONTRACT under the adjudged
eases III this md other States by which the cor
por:ttion acquires thof**powers and function, to
tsait crhS f 69h business q h in the nude pre-
minority If the courts that all t
this is by necessary Implication subject, as alt
citizens are. to the Legislative power Of tho
State to define, prohibit, and punish cxtortioa.
The reasons and authorities leading t, this con-
-luston are presented and discussed in the cuse
# Rugglcs VS.. The People, ol ILL.,, 2l,-:..5G. and
his chse must be governed by TINT. Tho juug-
nent must be affirmed. The writer Of this
opinion did not CONCUR in tho decision in that
case. md does not CONCUR in this Judgment
affirmed.
FAST TRAINS.
The various Eastern roads from this city,