The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-08-18

nations. AllOEr
several States"
The power 10 regulate conferred BY that
clause Is one without Limitation. and 10 regu-
! late commerce Is to prescribe rules by which
f II shau be governed. That i. the conditions
upon which il shall be conducted to determi q e
/ how far it shall be burdened by du les and i'm
posts, and how far il shall be prohibited
! Commerce Is term of the largest import. Il
compreheRds intercourses for the purposes Of
+ trade in say nd all its forms including the
transportation, purchase. sale aud exchange Of
commodities between the citizens Of our eoun-
+ try and the citizens II other countries, and
between the citizens Of the different States
4 The power TO regulate il embraces all instru-
ments by which such commerce may be con-
Quoted 1t viii not be denied that that portion
+ OF commerce with foreign countries and be-
tween the STATE which consists IN the trans
portatlon ami exchange Of commodities Is OF
national Importance, and admits aud requires
uniformity Of regulation. The very object o.
investing this power in the General Govern
ment was 10 secure this uniformity gainst dis
crlmlnatlng State legislation. The fact that
Congress has ret seen fit 20 establish or rre
scribe any liked specific rules tor the govern
ment OF Interstate commerce does not affect
the question
It's inaetion on this question, when eonsid-
cred with reference TO its legislation with re-
spect TO foreign commerce. Is equivalent TO a
declaration that Inter-S ate commerce shall
remain free and untrammelicd.
In Henderson Y. New \ ork Mayer, the Court
holds, THAT regulation which imposes a
burdensome or impossible condition on those
engaged IN cou-merce, whether with foreign
nations or among the States, must of necessity
be national 1t cannot come from State.
our Committee are further of the opinion
that II the State ever had any authority to n
and regulate the charges made by railroads IN
TINS State on their freight and passengers,
she has parted with that right by confer
ring upon the companies, by clause TO be
found in all their charters, the power and
right TO fix and regulate the tariff OF freights
of the companies In this view OF the case we
refer TO the case of Sloan ct al. vs.. the Pacific
Railroad, reported in 6lst Mo, page p. IN
which the Court uses the following language
Private corporations, although estabI shed
Tor public uses. still entitled 10 the rights
bestowed by their charters, unless lnconsis-
tent with that sovereign power with VIII Gu the
tate cannot part. In the latter case the re
nunciation by the Legi stature would be of no
avail, and not bind its successors But the
Legislature may part with its right of taxation,
I'D fdcti0rs with its right to regulate rates
upon a railroad. The Legislature may at all
times regulate the exercise of a railroad fran
chse by general laws passed for the peace,
good order, health aud comfort OF society, but
It cannot, under color OF such laws, impair or
destroy the franchise, or any right or power es-
seutial to its beneficial exercise
And the power granted to Railroad Com
pany adjust its tariff of charges Is one essen
tial to the enjoyment OF It's franchise. The JUS
tce or injuitIce Of the rates cannot be deter
mined by the Legislature.
In the above case, an Act Of the Legislature
of the State of Missouri undertook TO define the
Of Railroad Companies just as the
Act now before US undertakes TO do, and to
declare that a charge for one distance if 1t ex- |
ceeds a charge for longer one Is an unjust |
In commenting on that par |
ticuiar clause of the Missouri statute, the |
Court says: This may be SO; bur whether it |
is or not Is question for the Courts TO decide, /
and not The legislature.
Your committee are further OF the opinion |
that that clause to be found in the CHARGER OF |
ali the railroads III this State conferrlng on |
said roads the power to fix and regulate the /
rate of charges for freight and passengers Is a |
contract within the meaning Of the Conslltu-
ton, between the State aud the Railroad Com |
panies, under which rights have vested, and |
that that clause in the charter of the Compa-
MES is irrepealable. The charters under which
the Railroad Corporations are operating, con-
tanning the clause above referred to, are con-
tracts between the State and the corporations,
and cannot be repealed without the consent Of
he corporators, and any law that impaired or
diminished the obligation of that contract
would be in violation of article l, section 8 OF
he Constitution OF the State Of Mississippi
md article l. section IL, of the Constitution of
he United States. 50th Miss, 6S3; 54th Miss,
500; Cooley Const. Linn, II9, foot note :.
This view has been repeatedly taken by our
,wn Supreme Court, and has recently been
in terms that admit OF no doubt.
Y Miss, III.
In this case, it was held that provision in
he charter of the Mobile aud Ohio Railroad
Company, exempting said company from tax
ltion was irrepealable and invioIable. On
his noint we al 80 ref-r to 4th Wall, l43; Ibid,
,35 10th Wall, AIS; 10Th Wall, 80; list Wah,
I56.
The extent to which the value Of this cen
.ract NAV be impaired does not arise The
supreme Court in the case of Planters Bank |
vs. Sharp 9th Howard, 327, holds that the con
.ract shall not be impaired at all Inc same
doctrine is announced in 18th Miss, oO0-
Your committee in view of the fact that the
dill herewith reported has passed the Senate,
md wishing to show proper respect for that
9odv and the feelings of the people urging the
passage of the law, ask that these their reasons
ror reporting adversely thereto may. be pub
ished and spread upon the Journals of the
House Respectfully,
c. S. ROBERTSON, Chm.
J. W Downs,
CHAs 7. MURPHY,
JEFF. WILSON,
W. A. HURT.