Morning journal and courier., 1883-05-09
ALL ABOUT TWO CENTS.


 One of the most important and interesting or the twenty-six decisions which have just been rendered by the Supreme court of the United States is that in the called Granger case of Neal Ruggles. This case has been in the courts nearly ten years and both sides have fought over it long and we'll
 Like some other celebrated cases this grew out of an apparently trifing matter-a differ enee of two cents. On March IS, 1873, Mor- gan A Lewis, passenger on train of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad company, rendered Neal Ruggles a conduc- tor of that company, eighteen cents as fare for his transportation from Buda to Nepon- set, distance of six miles This was at the maximum rate of three cents per mile pre- scribed by the statute of Illinois. The con ductor demanded twenty cents, which was the fare fixed by the railroad company. Lewis refused to pay more than eighteen cents and the conductor thereupon attempted to eject him from the car. For this act the conduc- tor was prosecuted before justice of the peace upon charge of assault and battery and was fined ten dollars and costs. The case was then carried up through the State courts by successive appeals, the railroad company sustaining the conductor and raising the question of the right of the State to interfere with its business by fixing rates of fare and transportation. decision was finally ren- dered Tn favor of the State by it's highest court ard the railroad company thereupon appealed to the Supreme court of the United States, upon the ground that the act of the general assembly of Illinois of April 15, 1871. fixing a maximum rate of charges for the transportation of passengers on railroads in the State was unconstitutional and void be- cause it impaired the obligation of the con- tract contained in the charters of the various companies which were merged into the Chi. cago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad com pany by consolidation
 The Supreme court of the United States afirms the judgment of the Supreme court of Illinois. It holds: First-That grants of immunity from legitim ate governmental con trol are never to be presumed. On the con trary, the presumptions are all the other way and unless an exemption is clearly established the legislature is free to act on all subjects within it's general jurisdiction as public inter- ests may seem to require A State may limit the amount of charges by railroad companies for fares and freights, unless restrained by some contract in the charter Second-That in the present case there is no such restraint. The State, it is true, has given the board of directors of the railroad company the "power to establish such rates of tolls for the con- veyance of persons or property as they shall from time to time by their bylaws deter mine, but such bylaws must not be repug- nant to the constitution and laws of the State If the State had not the legislative power to regulate the charges of carriers for hire, the case would be different, but that question has been settled, and the amended charter which the company secured from the legislature must be construed in the light of that estab- ished power.
 Thus ends case which at one time and another has attracted much attention It seems as if the railroad company mighs have found some lawyer who would haEs given it good advice and saved it from making ten years fuss over two cents and getting beaten at last