The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-05-23
RAILROADS ANDLEGIsLATUREs
The Latters Right to Fix Rates.

The Latters Right to Fix Rates.
WASHINGTON, May S.-A decision
was rendered by the Supreme Court to-
day in the so-called Granger case of
Neal Ruggles, plaintiff in error, against
the people of the State of Illinois. This
case arises out of the facts below set
forth. On the 18th of March, 1873,
Morgan A. Lewis, passenger on the
train of the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy Railroad Company rendered
Neal Ruggles, conductor Of that compa-
ny, Is cents rs fare for his Transports
tion from Buda to Neponset, distance
OF six miles. This was at the maximum
rate of cents per mile, prescribed by
the statute Of illinois then in force.
The conductor demanded - cents, which
was the fare fixed by the railroad com
pany. Lewis refused to pay more than
| Is, and the conductor thereupon at
| tempted to eject him from the car. For
this act the conductor was prosecuted
before justice of the peace, upon the
charge of assault and battery, and was
fined $40 and costs. The case was then
carried up through the State Courts by
successive appeals, the railroad company
sustaining the conductor and raising
question of the right Of the State to in
terfere with it's business by fixing the
rates of fare and transportation. The
decision was finally rendered in favor OF
the State by its highest court, and the
railroad company thereupon appealed to
the Supreme Court of the United States
upon the ground that the act of the Gen
eral Assembly of Illinois, of April Is
1871, fixing the maximum rate O
charges for the transportation OF passen
gers on railroads in the State was uncon
stitutional and void, because it impaireC
the obligation of contract contained II
the charters Of the various companie
which we're merged into the Chicago
Burlington and Quincy Railroad Com
pany by consolidation. This cour
| holds:
/. That grants of immunity iron
legitimate governmental control ar
never to be presumed. On the contrar,
the presumptions are all the other way
and unless an exemption is clearly Ell
tablished the Legislature is free to ac
, on all subjects within its general juri'
diction, as public interests may seem t
require. The State may limit tn
amount of charges by railroad compa
nv for fares and freights, unless n
7 strained by some contract IN the cha
ter.
2. That in the present case there Ia
, such restraint. The State, it is tru,
has given the Board Of Directors OF IL
I Railroad Company the power to estaI
1 lish such rates of toll for the conye.
ance of persons and property as the
shall from time to time, by their b.
laws, determine" bat such bylaws mu
not be repugnant to the Constitutio
q and laws Of the State. If the State ha
6 not legislative power to regulate Il
o charges of carriers for hire the ca'
q would be different, but that question HI
been settled and the amended chart
:! which this company has secured fro
y the Legislature must be construed
ii the light of that established power.
10 The Judgment of the Supreme Cou
- OF Illinois IS affirmed with costs. Opl
n ion by Chief Justice Waite. Justi
r. Harlan concurs in tho judgment, b
ID not in the opinion. Justice Blatchfo
III did not sit in the case.
ce A decision was also rendered by t
he court in the case Of the Illinois Cent
Al Railroad Company, plaintiff in err
q. against the people of the State OF Ill
or ois, which involves precisely the sal
NJ questions which were presented III
preceding case. For the reasons CIV
;. by the court, in its opinion of that ca
OF the Judgment of the Supreme Court
nd Illinois is affirmed. Opinion by Oh
It; Justice Waite. Judge Harlan conc
!; in the judgment but not in the oplnl