The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-10-17
RAILROAD SUPERVISION.
A Review Of the Supreme Court De
eison Affecting this Question.

taAeA&1 TIE eo1utn1E q your Eainable
and widely circulated Journal a brief re
view Of the articles Of Hon. Ethel
Barksdzie On the subject Of Railroad
Supervision.
! have great respect for Maj Rarks-
dale's patriotism and intelligent yieus
on any question that aEects the interest
Of the people and the state. and there
fore ] have bat one purpose in view.
aud that is to examine the corrertness
Of the legal conclusion reached by him
in the articles mentionea.
In order to do this. il il necessary Il
give . summary of the arguments pre-
sented by Maj. Barksdale ia support q
his conclusion.
1t seems that IN 1874 the Legislature
Of Mississippi was attempting 20 legis
late upon this subject. and that Major
Barksdale came out in an editorial IN
THE CLARI0S, in which he questioned
the legal power of the State, to superviss
railroads, also opposed Il as being unwiss
legislation
In HE recent article he states that hS
has advanced on this important ques
tion as the courts have advanced, and as
sumes TO show that the United States
Supreme Court reached this conclusion
in what is known as the Granger cases, als(
refers to the recent opinion Of the sans
court in the case of RuggIes against the
people, and from these authorities he
deduced the conclusion, that the right
to regulate the fare to be charged by
common carriers for the Transportation
OF persons and property was an ele
ment of the sovereign power of the
State, which the Legislature could moi
part with or delegate to any other
power.
j challenge the correctness of this
legal conclusion. and proceed to give
the authority upon which I rely to sus-
tain my views OF this controverted propo.
sition.
The Supreme Court of the United
States, just before its adjournment in
May last, delivered its opinion in the
case of Ruggles vs.. the People. through
its Chief Justice. s<Mr.. Waite said
In the view we take of this case, the
only question that need be considered is,
whether the charter of the Central
Military Tract Railroad Company, one
of the Illinois corporations which,
through agreements of consolidation
are now represented by the Chicago
Burlington and Quincy Railroad Com.
pany, purports on its face to grant to
the company the right to ix the rates OF
fare and freight to be charged for the
conveyance of persons and property on
its railroad free Of al control by the
State. If, on examination, we find thai
no such grant ras intended, it will be un.
necessary to decide whether one Legis.
lature has the power to bind succeeding
Legislatures by contract to that
effect
The Court, in its examination. found
that the Chicago, Burlington, and Quin.
cy Railroad Company in Illinois i
formed by the union Of four connecting
roads fhe several eonpan es which
constructed these roads were formed
under special charters and united In an
agreement OF consolidation under the
name Of the Chicago, Burlington and
| Quincy Railroad Company. On the
18th Of March, 1873, Morgan A. Levi.
got on passenger train at Buda to ride
to Neponset, distance of six miles
The fare fixed by the company wa.
twenty cents, and this sum was demand
ed By hnggles, the conductor. The rate
OF fare fixed by law of the State OF fIli
nois then in force was three cents pei
mile, or eighteen cents. This amount
Lewis offered to pay and refused to pay
more.
Tie conductor, Neil RueeIes, eiectet
him from the train and, thereupon. ht
sued for az assault and battery. Buds
and Neponset were points on that par
of the road which was constructed ane
4 operated under the charter granted t.
the Central Military Tract Railroad
Company. The original charter OF thii
company limited the rates of fare fol
passengers to three cents per mile. thu
same rate fixed by law Of the State al
the time the controversy arose, and tn.
same as the rate rendered BY Lewis, bu
the company claimed that when thu
Legislature by its act consolidated tn,
four roads and created the Chicago
darlington and Quincy Railroad Com
pany, the Limitation of three cents pc
mile, as contained in the original char
ter, was repealed; and that the claus
inserted in the amended charter OF con
solidatiOn eoIiferring the power upol
the Directors to fix, establish and max
such rates of toll asthey NAV determine
Was substituted in lieu thereof.
The Court found that the amendmen
relied upon by the Chicago, Burlington
and Quincy Railroad Company fo
authority to fix its rates of toll to b
charged for the transportation of pc,
sons and property, provides as follows
Section s. The said company shal
IA - x1..s.
iish all such bylaws, rules and reguls
tions as may be deemed expedient an
necessary to fulfill the purposes an
carry into effect the provisions Of thi
act, and for the well ordering, regulatin
and securing the affairs, business an
interest of the company; Provided, tbs
. the same be not repugnant to the Cor
stitution and laws OF the United State
J OF of this State or repugnant to this ae
The Board of Directors shall hav
power to establish such rates Of toll fo
, the conveyance of persons or propert
2 upon the same as they shall from tim
: to time, by their bylaws determine. an
| to collect the same for the use of th
/ said company"
; The Court found 1T the time II
: company accepted this amendment
! its charter, there was in force ON Il
E statute the following act:
i Section 80. The Legislature ma
4 when any such railroad shah be opene
) for use, from time 20 time, dEter or +
: duee the the rates of toll, fare, freigl
!, or other profits upon such road. Ell
2 and that no railroad company shall pa
) any bylaw Fepugnant to this art.ss
E The Court, IN this state Of facts sal,
E Grants Of Immunity from Iegitima
/ governmental control are never ta
a presumed. On the contrary. the pI
4 sumptions are all the other wav, and u
Z less an exemption il clearly establishe
b the Legislature IS free to act ON all sn
= ]ects within its general Jurisdiction.
q the public interests may seem 10 /
e quire
4 In Chicago, Burlington and Gain,
d Railroad Company vs Iowa. 81 Il. I
Peik -. Chicago and Northwestern Ra
way C0mpahys Ia. I76, and Winona q
st PetOr Railroad Company -. Bal
: Id, $50, it was determined that 4 Sta
inay limit the anaouht of charges
I railroad Companies for fares and freieh
: : a.itess gsstratHed 5y some coafruef II
4 tkafef.
2 "The right to reversal Of the Or
4 ent Judgment rests on the auesfi
8 whether this company has any such
s. straInlng contract, and that depends.
\ 4 the effect TO Be given the amending ).
q ton 6.
i The Conrt eenfinnea in an elabor.
u 4 opinion. but finally reaches the conc
~ sion that the State NJ TI1frosa hs1