Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-05-12
AN IMP0RTANF RAILROAD DE.


When the bill creating Railroad Commits
sion for Tennessee was before the last session
OF the Tennessee Legislature, public adj
dress was given in Nashville in which il wss
broadly asserted that 4 privilege iusaited in
a railway charter constitutes . contract be.
tween the railway company and the Stale
and cannot be changed or revoked without
the consent of the company. The APPEAL
at the time poiat { u: that this Ess an
error. That the State could not, by the act
OF one Legislature, so forfeit the right Of
eminent domain, and 30 yield the power Of
action WHEN future and changed cfrcum-
stances required, as to bird the hands and
staIemenV the APPEAL fortified by citing
various decisions Il the courts, which most
etfectuslly barred out The claim of the
railwsy companies. Ga Monday last the
Supreme Court of the United States, in a
Gaze against the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy Railroad Company, again asserted
the broad principle that privilege con.
coded TO railroad is not 9 contract entered
into by State with a railroad. The charter
of the above road conferred upon its drec-
tors "power TO establish ouch rates Of toll
for the convey ance OF persons or property 50
they shall from time TO time by their by
laws determine" Here the grant is very
broad; no maximum rate restricts the use or
abuse Of the privilege; the company could
charge just what they pleased. The question,
however, still remained-was the privilege
granted forever, or for "a long as the Slate
should see ft TO continue IT'D The decision
Of the Supreme Court once more
affirmed the latter alternative; the
grant did not tie the States hand
for future time. The State Lsgisla-
the railroads charter, passed an act restrict
ing the fare for passengers in the State of
Illinois to three cents mile. The company
set up the usual plea that such legislation
impaired the obligation of i,s contract with
the State, sn was, Their, fore, uncoustitu-
tional. But the court held that the power
OF State TO control railroad corporation
which it has created, in the matter OF freight
and passenger charges, is supreme, and that
the clause giving the Chic7go, Burlipg ton
and Quincy Company the right TO fix IFS tolls
could not deprive the State Of its controlling
power. The court held that the grant in
question is to be very strictly Construed,
and that grants OF immunity from legisla-
tive control are nsver to be presumed. II
they are not plainly expressed they do not
exist. The presumption is against them,
and is in favor Of the authority OF the State
to make such regulations az the public inter-
est may require. This adds one more to a
number OF railroad cases, involving
different aspects Of railroad laws,
which have been carried up to the
Supreme Court of the United States within
the last five years, and the decisions upon
them have all been in sne directlon-afirm-
alive Of the controlling power Of the State in
its regulation Of railroads. AS We have not
reached the last words in the State of Ten
nessee respecting the powers the State shall
confer upon lis Railroad Commissioners, il
will be we'll for tn readers OF the APPEAL to
keep in mind the broad; principle OF law 40
constantly adhered 10 by the highest legal