The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-09-03

Talidity Of the supervision Law are, ~ G
hat Il inpairs the obligation Of a con
.Fact; ~ that It Is regulation Of com !
nerce among the States, not permitted '
BY the federal constitution, and co, that q
i is in violation Of the fourteenth I
amendment I
Faithful 70 his clients, as Col.
NUoEST always il, he has collected :
quite number Of interesting authori- /
lies tending 10 sustain the positions he
has assumed; but be seems in his search
after precedents, to have overlooked
those which mark the progress Of judi
cial thought a. TO the questions be dis
cusses, and 10 have rested with too much
confidence on the declarations Of courts
made before those questions assumed
their present importance.
In arguing the first point-whether
the supervision law violates the charter
contract between the railroad company
and the State-COl. NUGEST is com
PEELED TO admit, in accordance with the
decisions which he cites, that the extent |
10 which the Legislature can 90 in max
ing contracts with common carriers, is |
10 allow them to fix and regulate their
rates and charges within the limit Of
reasonableness; but he contends il this
limit is exceeded at any time that tae
person aggrieyed must appeal 20 the
courts for redress. The admission that
the Legislature has not the power TO
grant 10 carrier the right TO charge
unreasonable rates j. fatal to the argu-
ment, and we are somewhat surprised
that Col. NUGENT does not know it, fol-
the Supreme Court Of the United States
has decided that the question Of reason
| ablcness is a legislative and not judi
cial question. H,mn T.. Illinois, % L. 5,
ll3; Pill o.. Chicago e N0rihwcstern
Roiiroqi C0npaHy, ID. l64 On this par
ticular point Col. NUGENT viii be
weaker with the Supreme Court Of the
United States than he imagines, because
Mr. Justice FIELD, who is member Of
the court, and generally relied on to
sustain the position contended for, said
in the case Of RVgglss o.. Illinois, los T..
S., j26, which grew out Of the statute Of
that State limiting passenger fare to
three cents a mile, that he concurred in
the opinion Of the court soieiy on the
ground that no proof was made that
the rate prescribed by the Legislature
was unreasonable" By which we I'M
derstand that Judge FIELD comedies to
the Legislature the right to establish
rates which shall be PyIna faeie reasona-
bic.
The second question discussed by Col
NUGENT is settled by the case Of Peik o
Chicago and Norii,cesiern Railroad Com
pany "a U. S. 1874, which is a case il
point, and the only case directly il
point that we have ever been able to find
This case is against Col. NUGENT, and a
he has entirely overlooked it, he is still
engaged in a useless search to find on,
Of equal authority in harmony with hi
views.
The third question discussed will
hardly, as we think, be considered a
affecting the Supervision law in any wa,
whatever.
1t is difficult for the courts, and e.
pecially 50 for Interested attorneys, t,
tear themselves away from antiquate,
precedents. Attorneys are accustomed f
"work precedents for all they are worth
which is strictly in the line of their pro
fession; but, happily, for the people, tn
courts have always been found equal L
the demands which the welfare and pros
perity of the country and the necessitie
of the people make upon them.
AS illustrative of the tendency o
courts under the influence of the need
of the public we will relate a it'll
judicial history:
At the common law, if the creation
Of a franchise was not declared to be ex
G elusive, it was implied in the grant, as il
the case of the grant of a ferry, bridge
turnpike, or railroad, that the govern
, ment would not either directly or indirec.
ly interfere with it 40 rs to destroy o
materially impair il; but the Suprem
q Court Of the United States in the cas-
Il Of Charles Rirer Bridge Company e.. Va,
rem, on Peters, 420), speaking through
Mr.. Justice TANEY, declared that publ
, grants were to be construed strictly
n and that nothing passed as against tn
is State by implication, in diminution o
% the legislative powers requisite TO accom-
plish the end Of their creation. 1t wa
accordingly decided that the grant b
q statute to the Charles River Bridge Con
r pany Of the right, founded on a valus
- bic consideration, to build a bridge owe
that river and take toll contained n
engagement from the State of Massachu
y sets, nor implied contract, that the priv
: ilege to erect another bridge contiguou
e thereto and which might create compC
tition and destroy its income, shoul'
not be granted, within the period Of tn
c operation Of the grant. that as no gran
i Of any such exclusive privilege or an.
a contract Of the kind was expressed, non
was to be intended or inferred. Their
was no constructive franchise OF priv
. lege admitted, aud the decision reste,
70 on legislative sovereignty and its all sur
passing powers. This is now the prevs
lent principle in American constitu
. tional law. Kent's Com, 4j9, n.
This is striking illustration of tn,
4 doctrine that the convenience of tn,
public is a consideration of paramount
Importance, and that the courts will no
e suffer common law precedents to stanC
n in the way of such convenience, but viii
n override them as often as occasion ma,
I require.
Our faith in the validity of the Law
attacked by the railroad cOmpanie
grows with the discussion Of the subjec;
/ and We have now literally no doubt tina
4 il will be sustained by the courts.
Z