Omaha daily bee., 1883-05-30
A Significant Decision,

st. Louis Globe. Democrat.
The decision recently rendered by |
the supreme court of the United
States In the Ruggles case Is one of
more than usual interest and signif-
canoe. II Is, In q general way, q
mere affirmation Of former decisions
to the effect that a state has power to
regulate the charges of railroads. But
1t does not stop there. 1t goes on to
declare that this power may be exer-
cised In q case where tie charter
granted by such state to a railroad
company contains q provision author
Izing said company to fix the rates of
toll. In other words, II is held that
q clause of this kind In a railroad
charter Ia not q contract restraining
the state from interference with the
matter Of charges as the public inter.
ests may seem to require, bat must be
construed as a grant to be exercised
subject to the sovereign power of the
state.
A different decision was contended
for and predicted by very able law
yers, but 1t Is not easy to gee how any
other conclusion than this one could
have been reached by tho court. To
say that q state has vested In q cor
poration an absolute right to charge
what II pleases for q public
service is to say that the state has
parted to that extent with Its sover-
eighty, which is neither good law nor
correct logic. Sovereign authority il
nothing unless 1t be complete and In.
divisible. There can not be two SOW
ereignties at the same time In the
same place over the same thing, and
yet that would have to ensus If the
state parted absolutely with any share
of it's original power to control and
regulate the public transactions Of a
corporation. 1t Is argued, to BIZ sure,
that a grant of immunity from leglsls-
tive control does not amount to In
vesting the grantee with sovereignty;
but the distinction Is technical and
fallaoious, as we'll as mischievous.
The obviously true ground Is that
taken by the court In this case, name
ly: that all such grants must be con-
strued In the light of the established
power Of the state to exercise the gov
erning sway at Its pleasure, and
without reference to any presumed or
inferential% exception therefrom.
This decision will materially help to
strengthen the system of railroad
supervision through commissioners
which a goodly number Of the states
have adopted; and on that account,
II no other, It Is a thing to be thank.
full for. The railroad problem Is the
biggest and most perplexing one of
the age, and this commissioner system
seems to promise more In the practical
solution than anything that has yet
been devised. It is still an expert.
mont, of course, and 1t has a great
many embarrassments to contend with;
but as a general thing, 1t appears to
work advantsgeously, and whatever
tends to justify and promote 1t as an
influence In what locks to be the right
direction. A great point has been
gained when the highest court Of the
country decisively announces the right
of a state to control and regulate the
affairs of railroads not only in q gen.
eral way and subject to varying con
d~itions, bat fundamentally, and In
spite o. lawyers quirks and sophis-
tries. On that point, at least, there's
no longer any room for question; and
the railroads are not likely to make
any further resistance In the matter.
If a charter provision giving to the
directors, as In this case, ''the power
to establish such rates of tolls tor tht
conveyance of persons or property al
they shall from tina to time by theil
bylaws determine" Is not a grant o.
fixed authority, but only a permission
that may be revoked or disregarded a
the will of the state and that 10 wha'
the supreme court says 1t is-ther
there is nothing left 20 cavil about,
and states have the amplest Warrant
for assuming supervisory control o.
the operations of the railroads within
their respective limits.
1t is doubtful, however, il thu
problem can be thoroughly SOLVED
without an eventual resort to some sor'
of national supervision, either In thu
form of an adjunct or supplement t.
the state system, or az q separate ane
comprehensive expedient supersedin,
everything else. The principal diff
Guilty that q state has to encounter Ia
the fact that Its authority stops wher
1t reaches the state line, while railroad
of any Importance extend farther and
like Dsademona, Shave . divided
duty" Thus, what is practicable IL
one state may be found entirely i'm
practicable In an adjoining one, ant
yet the operations of the road pertain
equally to each of them. For in
stance, In an agricultural state, wher'
most of the product Is marketed at
distance, the state Ia powerless t.
make any regulations as to toll
that will follow the bulk of
roads business far enough to answer
aidebnite and controlling purpose
The thing that courts with the pro
Queer Is the final price that his ship
ment commands at the end. of thu
journey, and that journey may cross
two, three or half a dozen different
states having different and conflicting
laws and schedules of charges. Wher,
a state markets or consumes all ttl
surplus product within it's own Dor
ders, 1t may control Its railroads ant
their relations to commerce In a full
and positive fashion; but not man,
states are so situated. As a rule, the
adjustment OF local rates does no
touch the principal traffic; that Il
governed by the through rates, which
cover the whole distance between the
farm where the grain is raised and
the leading markets where price
are determined. In course OF tim
this difficulty NAV be obviated by sep