The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1882-10-07
1a1 uI1lCols DDoleno1f.

1IfD ILLINOIS D001o10N.
The full text Of the important d.
cision referred to In dlspatehss tve
OF three days since, eosossninG . T.
eisioa BY The Suprsms Court q ill.,
nois In rs]ation TO frsight disesimin-
ations, has come 70 hand BY mail.
The questioa decided was whether
the Legislature possessed the power
70 regulate the rates charged BY rail-
roads for the transpostatien q
freight to points outside Of Illinois,
and whether, II the Legislature had
that power, the aet prohibiting un-
Just discrimination and extostion
was valid and not In cootEavention
Of the Constitution Of United States.
Both Of these questions have been
DECIDED in the affirmative BY tie
Supr~me Court q Illinois, and Tie
effect of tho decision b to establish
the authority Of the Railroad and
Warehouse Cemmissioners to regu.
late the rates Of roads On freight
shipped from points within that
State to points In other states.
The pro eeedings In the caoe decid-
ed were instituted BY Attorney Gen.
erAl Mccartney, - the result Of .
complaint hled with the Railroad
aud Wa ae;lov.e Commissioner. The
his;o,vo' the case sbow. that IN
August, 1881. the Wa''a,''. S.. Louie
4 Pacific Railway C.M ,,aDy carried
upon it, own line ION Peo il
through Gilman 10 Toledo, and
thence over connecting lines, to New
York City, certain freight for Elder
/ Mckinney OF Peoria, and charged
for such service ct the rate Of Aftesn
cents per hundred weight per car
load. At the same time Baily 4
Swannsll, Of Gilman, shipped over
the same lines, from Gilman to New
York, the distince being Les by
eighty-six miles, the same class Of
freight in carloads, and were charged
twenty-five cents per hundred pr
carload, IN excess Of ten cents per
hundred for carrying the same kind
Of freight In the same direction, 1t
the same time and . lsss dhtsnee.
Complaint being made to the Board,
by advice Of the Attorney General
suit was brought to recover the statu-
tory penalty provided BY the Act of
May ID, 1873, for unjust discrimin-
alton and extertion In mates charged
6or the transportation Of frsights and
passenger.
The statute Of the state Of Illinois
under which this action Was brought
reads ~ follows: "Ifany railruad cor
poration, organised or doing business
In this State shall charge, collect, de-
mand or receive more than . fair and
reasonable rate Of toll or compensa-
ton for the transportation Of passen-
gers or freight Of any de-
scription, or for the use Of
any transportation of any rail-
road car upon its track, or any Of the
branches thereof, or upon any Tail-
road within this State which it has
the right, license or permission to
use, operate or control, the same shall
be deemed guilty Of extortion, and
upon conviction thereofshall be dealt
with ~ hereinafter provided.
The right Of the State to regulate
tariffs Tor fare and freight within the
State was barely referred to In the
decision. The discussion Of the law
questions and decision. hearing on
the right Of one State ~ regulate in
ter-State commerce occupied the
greater portion Of the court decision.
rAe Court admitted that the exclu-
sive power to regulate commerce had
been conferred by the constitution
upon Congress, but held that, while
Congress omitted to exercise its ad-
niittei powers, It was lawful for the
States interested to make such nec-
essary legislation for the regulation
Of commerce ~ might be considered
best for the protection Of its citizens.
In Chicago, Burlington 4 Quincy
railrnad W. Iowa, the Supreme
Court said: "until Congress acts the
state must be permitted to adopt
such rules and regulations ~ may be
necessary for the promotion Of the
general welfare Of the people within
its own Jurisdiction, even though In
- doing those without may be indi.
rectly affected" The ultimate de.
ci~ion Of this question may require
years. but It IL one that will employ
tue greatest constitutional minds Of
the country, involving questions that
engrossed the attention Of the found.
ers Of the Government, and the dual
decision will be one Of the grandesl
that has come before the Supreme
Court Of the United States for years