The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-05-14

prebeuded the law and the facts Of this
case and that his statement of it IS not
sustained bs the book, and We ask those
Who have access to the reported case to
examine it critically. II the decision
be in favor of the Commission the Com
mission is entitled to il and Judge Hin
is bound By it.
We will examine it. Certain corpo
rstions in Illinois and Wisconsin were
consolidated, the Legislature of the
latter State passing an enabling act, in
which act it was provided that,
.sThe consolidated company shall De and
remain subject to the laws OF the State OF
Wisconsin and the State OF Illinois, respee-
tiuefy. and shall have in all respects the
same privileges az though this consollda-
ton had not taken place.
Judge Hill says:
81 corporation Of Illinois was by the
consent of that State merged into corpo-
ration Of the State OF Wisconsin, and in
express terms was thereafter to be govern
ed by the laws of Wisconsin, and the Con
stitntion of Wisconsin authorized the leg
| isIation complained OF, and the corpora
/ ton had become domestic corporation OF
Wisconsin, although its line of road ex-
tended into the State OF Illinois"
This is big mistake. 1t is true that
Wisconsin could legislate for the consol-
idated company in Wisconsin as if no
consolidation had taken place, as stated
by Mr.. Chief Justice Waite and as
quoted by Judge Hill, but that WiscOn-
sin could legislate for the consolidated
company in Illinois nowhere appears
And it could not; because the stipula
ton was that the Illinois roads should
be and remain subject to the laws Of
the State Of Illinois.
GAS concerns the rule as to CONNER
cial power" as Judge Hill phrases it, thu
case he was deciding was ION all fours'
with the one he was cliticizing.
Here, Louisiana and Mississippi
corporation consolidated; there, Wisccn
sin and Illinois corporations consoli
dated; here and there the attempt wa
to restrain the commission because tn
: line of railroad to be affected was no
entirely within the State. In fact tn
only difference between the two cases
e in the decision of them. The Suprem
I Court of the United States decided tn
Wisconsin case one way and Judge Hi
decided the Mississippi case anothe
; way. There is literally no warrant 70
Judge Hills statement that the case
different from the case here in tha
! there it was "a case where one State ha
|. the power to regulate rates on roat
extending beyond its limits" if h
< intended to say that Wisconsin ha
any other and different power over tn
y road in Illinois than Mississippi ha
u over compliments road in Louisiana Q
Tennessee.
Nor is it true ':that the court through
i out treats the corporation as domesti
. corporation under the power of Wi
+ consin throughout its line of road, i
|, any other sense than Judge Hill woul
II have been warranted in treating I'll
Chicago, st. Louis ard New OrleaT
/ Railroad Company as domestic co
d poration of this State. The opinion, {
anything to be found in the reporte
y case, does not contain the slightest int
t nation that Wisconsin could legislat
for the roads in Illinois, except that
l. could make rates that would be bindin
on inter state shipments.
y In the view we have taken it is n,
Ie necessary to discuss the contract fe
n ture, though we do not assent to the do
= trine that the language used in the cha
d ter of the Chicago, St. Louis and Ne
Orleans Railroad Company, estops tt
5 State from declaring by legislative e.
y actment what are reasonable rates. b
e We wish in this connection 20 ask Il
y reader to bear in mind that the resery
ton in State Constitutions of power
n regulate railroad tariffs confers no pow,
; as to interstate commerce that is NJ
J. possessed by all the States, and so "
4 say that if Iowa or Illinois or Wiseol
; sin can regulate Interstate shipment
, so can Mississippi.
The notion that because Of such re
eryation a State stands on any 9th,
: footing as to inter state shipments
without reason.