The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1883-05-17
STATES AND RAILROADS..
An Important Decinion OF tie q. y. su
premo Court.

WAsHlNGToN, May IA decision
was rendered by the U. S. Supreme
Court. to-day, in the 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, Nor
gan a. Lewis, passenger OIL a train of
the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
Railroad Company, rendered Neal Rug
giles, conductor of that company, eipR.
teon cents as fare for his transportation
from Huda TO Neponset, a distance of six
miles. This was at the maximum rate of
three cents per mile prescribed by the
Statute of Illinois, then in force. The
conductor demanded twenty cents, which
was the fare fixed by the Railroad Com.
pany. Lewis refused to pay more than
IL cents, and the conductor thereupon
attempted to eject him from the car.
For this act the conductor was prosecut-
ed 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 aud .aising tho
question OF the right Of tho State to in
terfere with its business by fixing rates of
fare and transportation. A decision was
finally rendered in favor of tho State by
the highest court, and the railroad there.
upon appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States on the ground that the
Act OF the General Assembly of Hi.
nols OF April Is, 1871, fixing n maximum
rate OF charges for the transportation of
passengers on railroads in the State was
unconstitutional and void, because it
impaired tho obligation of the contract
contained In the charters OF the various
companies which, were merged into the
chi:sso, Burlington and Quincy Rail.
road Company by consolidation. This
Court holds: First, that grants of immu.
NIFTY from legitimate governmental con-
troll are never to bo presumed On the
contrary, the presumptions are all the
other way, and unless an exemption ia
clearly established the Legislature is free
to act on such subjects within its general
jurisdiction as public interests seem to
require. The State may limit the
amount Of charges by railroad companies
for fares and freights unless restrained by
come contract in the charter. Second,
that in the present case there is no such
restraint. The State, it ia true, has given
the board of directors of the railroad
company the power to establish such
rates of tolls for the conveyance of per.
sons or property as their by laws shall
determine, but such bylaws must not be
reprgnant to the constitution and laws
Of the State. II the State had not iegis.
lative power to regulate the charges of
carriers for hire the case would be differ
emit but that question has been settled.
and the amended charter which this
company secured from the Legislature
L,ust be construed in the light of that
established power. The judgment of the
Supreme Court of Illinois is affirmed
with costs. Opinion by Chief Justice
Waite. Justice Harlan concurs in the
Judgment, but not in the opinion. Jus.
tice Blatchford did not sit in the case.
A decision was also rendered by the
Court in the case of the Illinois Central
Railroad Company, plaintiff in error,
against the people of the State of Illinois,
which involved precisely the same ques.
tions which were presented in the pre-.
ceding case. For the reasons given by
the Court in its opinion in that case the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Hi.
nofs is affirmed. Opinion by Chief Jus.
tice Waite. Justice Harlan concurs in
the judgment but not in the opinion.