Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-06
important Railroad Case.

States rendered on Monday last de-
cision which must be regarded as of
vast import. The following statement
Of the case in the New York Tribune's
Washington column is clear and easily
comprehended:
No. 722. John NJ. Stone and others.
comprising the Railroad Commission OF
the State Of Mississippi, against the
Farmers Loan and Trust Company-Ap-
peal from the Circuit Court Of the Dis
trict Of Mississippi. This is one Of the
Mississippi Railroad Commission cases.
1t was brought by the Farmers Loan
and Trust Company, Of New York, to
epjoin the Railroad Commission Of Mis-
sissippi from enforcing against the Mo-
bile and Ohio Railroad Company the
provisions Of the statute of Mississippi
passed in 1864 to provide for the regu-
lation of freight and passenger rates on
railroads in the State and for other pur-
poses. The statute declares that railroads
in the State are public highways over
which all persons have equal rights,
and makes any discrimination in rates
penal offence. 1t further provides for
the appointment of a Board Of Commits
sioners and confers upon it the power
Of revising the tariff Of charges and Of
exercising a certain degree Of super
vision over the roads, The companies
are required to make certain reports
periodically to the commissioners. The
officers of the roads are made liable to
fine for violation or non. compliance
with the provisions Of the act, which
fine may be collected through the courts.
This and certain other acts relating to
the chartering and control Of the rail-
roads of the State are cited at length
in the opinion. The Circuit Court rem
dered decree allowing the injunction,
and from that decree the commissioners
appealed. The argument in support Of
the decree is that the statute under
which the commissioners are to act i'm
pairs the obligation and charter-con-
tract of the company; that it is regu-
( latioD of commerce among the States !;
that it denies the company the equal
protection Of the laws and depriyes it Of
its property without due process of
law that it confers both legisla-
tive and Judicial powers upon
the Commission. and is thus
repugnant to the Constitution of
( Mississippi and void on its face by
reason Of its Inconsistencies and uncer-
tainties. The Supreme Court finds
that the charter of the company con-
tains no contract the obligation Of
which is any way impaired by the
statute under which the commissioners
are to act. 1t finds that the commits
sion is in express terms prohibited by
the act Of the State Legislature from
interfering with the charges Of the COM
pany for the transportation of persons
or property through Mississippi from
one State to another. The commissioners
have as yet undertaken nothing in con-
flict with the Constitution of the United
States. The great purpose, it says, Of
the statute in question is to fix a maxi
mum OF charges and to regulate in some
matters Of police nature the use Of
railroads in the State. In its general
scope it is constitutional and it applies
equally to all persons or corporations
owning or operating railroads in the
State. The Supreme Court of the
State Of Mississippi has already de-
clared that the statute is not repugnant
to the State Constitution, and in this
opinion the Supreme Court Of the
United States concurs.
1" 1t is difficult to understand" the
opinion says in conclusion, precisely
90 what ground we are expected TO de-
eide that this statute is so Inconsistent
and uncertain as TO render it absolutely
void on its face. The argument on this
branch of the controversy contains
much that might have been useful #
addressed to the Legislature while con
sidering the bill before its enactment.
but we find nothing in it to show that
the statute as it now stands is
altogether void and imperative.
When the commission has acted
and proceedings are bad to enforce
what they have done, questions may
arise as to the validity Of some of the
various provisions which will be worthy
OF consideration, but we are unable to
say that as a whole the statute is in
valid" The decree of the Circuit Court
was reversed and the cause remanded
with instructions TO dismiss the bill.
The opinion was delivered by the Chief
Justice. Justices Field and Harlan
dissented from certain of the opinions
expressed by the Conrt in this case, but
concurred in the judgment. Justice
Blatehiord did not take any part in the
decision.
This decision clears up some points
that were made in Congress when Mr..
REAGAN's interstate. commerce bill
was under consideration--ior instance,
The right to delegate to railroad COM
missioners the power tclaimed to be in
the legislative body only to make rules
and regulations that is, laws binding
upon a railroad. In the case before us,
the commissioners had the power to
regulate charges,