The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-03-04
LEGAL
Rights Of an EXPRESS Com
.pany Established.
Another Fatal Explosion
To-Day.
LEGAL
Winter Wheat,--Fires,--Gen
eraI News.


EXPkkSS COMPANf DECISIONS.
KEoKUK, Ia, March 4.-Justice Miller, OF
the U. s. Supreme Court, has given opin.
ions in the following cases: Southern Ex-
press Company VS.. the st. Louis, Iron
Mountain Sc Southern r. r. Company;
same VS.. the NJ s. L. r. r. r. Co.;
William B. Denomore, President of the
Adams Express Company VS.. the NJ z. s.
OR. R. Co; same VS.. the Atchison, To-
peka 6 Santa Fe r. R. Co.; and same VS..
the Denver s Rio Grande r. r. Co. JUS
tiee Miller gives first his opinion that what
is known as the Express business has by
necessities of commerce and usage become
known as branch of the carrying trade
entirely different from the transportation Of
the large mass of freight Usually carried on
steamboats, and railroads. That the object
of this Express business is to carry small
and valuable packages rapidly in such a
manner as not to subject them to loss and
damage which to greater or less degree
attends the transportation of heavy and
bulky articles. 1t has become law and
usage andis enc Of the necessities of this
business that these packages be in the i'm
mediate charge of messenger or agent
and to refuse permission to such agent to
accompany these packages on steamboats,
or railroads and to deny them ths right to
the control Of them while SO carried, is des-
tructive Of business and of rights which the
public have. In bse Of railroads in this
pla~c Of frar nrfo ,-s~ oo1
pany is no longer liable to all the obliga-
tions of common carrier where express
matter is SO confded to an agent, but where
loss occurs, exercise of DUE care and dill
gence of the railroad company is all that is
necessary. Under these circums tances
the railroad companies have ne right to in
spect or open packages, especially when
they have been closed by their owner or
by express carriers.
Justice. Miller gave it as his opinion that
itEs the duty of every railroadscompany to
provide such conveyance by such means
as special cars or otherwise, attached
to their freight or passenger trains as is re-
quired fer the safe and proper
transportation of this express matter on
their roads, and that the use Of these facil-
tiles should be extended ON equal terms to
all who are usually and actively engaged
in express business. Express matter and
messenger in charge should be carried by
railroads at fair and reasonable rates of
compensation, and where parties concern
ed cannot agree upon what that rate should
bo - = N for. rfc tO Heni6R
He was of the opinion that court of
equity, in a case properly made cut, had
authority to compel railroad companies to
carry express matter and to perform duties
in that respect indicated in opinion, and to
make such DEGREES and orders as are neees-
Eary, and to enforce them by ordinary
methods. He doubted the right of court
to fix in advance the precise rates which
express companies shall pay, and
railroad companies shall accept, but had
ne doubt of its right to compel the per
formances of service by railroad compan-
les and after it is rendered, to ascertain a
reasonable compensation and compel its
payments. To permit a railroad com
pany to fix upon the rate Of compensation
which is absolute and insist upon pay
ment in advance or the end of every train,
would be to enable them to defeat the just
rights of Express Companies, to destroy
their business and would be practical
denial of justice. To avoid this difficulty
Justice Miller thought the court could
assume that rate, or another msde OF
compensations heretofore existing between
any such companies is pr1naG- facfe reason
able and just and can require parties to
conform to it as the business progresses,
with right to either party to keep and pre-
sent an account of the business to the
court at stated intervals and claim an -ad-
dition to, or rebate frsm, the, amount
SO paid. and to secure railroad companies
in any sum which may be thus found due
them, a bond from the express company
may be required in advance. Where no
such arrangement has heretofore been in
existence it is competent for the court to
devise some mode of compensation to be
paid as the business progresses, with Like
power of final revision on evidence. refer
ence to master, etc. This opinion of JUS
tice Miller coincldes with the views of
Judge McCrary. given in former ruling.