Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1886-11-04
than 40 per cent. of the gross and make
plenty of money ont of it besides.

than 40 per cent. of the gross and make
plenty of money out of it besides.
eff [ am not mistaken the express COM
panies will have more trouble the next
five years to hold their places on the big
railroads than they ever had before. In
fact, it was supposed until recently that
a railroad company could not GUST an ex-
press company from its cars, even if it
wished to do so and the contract had ex-
pired. But two or three late decisions
have settled that beyond peradventure.
The express company view of the case
was that railroads are common carriers
and that express companies, as servants
of the people, have the same rights as
private shippers.
"The cases I speak of were the Missouri
Kansas and Texas railroad and others,
appellants, VS., William B. Dinsmore presi-
dent of the Adams Express company,
etc. All these suits, representing sub
stantially the same question, were brought
before the Supreme court by an appeal
taken from the decisions of the lower
court. The cases in the lower court were
brought by an express company against
railroad company to restrain the rail
road company from interfering with, or
therefore given the express company for
the transaction of its express business
on the lines of the railroads claimed the
right to transport express matter over
their own lines, in cars selected by them
selves, and under the supervision of their
own employees, and to this end refused
to transport the express matter, agents
and messengers of the express companies
The question involved was their right to
do this. The lower court decided against
the railroads, granting the in JUNCTION as
prayed. The cases were appealed and
thus brought before the Supreme Court
of the United States. The opinion of
the Supreme Court was delivered by the
Chief Justice. He held that it was not
shown in the testimony that any railroad
has ever held itself out as common
carrier Of common carriers. The cues
ton then was he said, whether these
express companies could now demand as
right what they had been enjoying
heretofore only as a favor. This de-
pended upon the fact whether or not
railroads were charged by law with the
duty of carrying all express carriers in
the way that express carriers are usually
carried-just as such railroads are charged
by law with the duty of carrying all pas
sengers and freight when offered in the
way in which such passengers and freight
are usually carried. The constitution
and laws of the states in which the COM
panies are located place them on the
footing of coRmop carriers, but there is
nothing in positive terms requiring rail
roads to carry all express companies in
the same manner in which they might, |
under some circumstances, carry one ex-
press company.
1.-The question was not whether rail
roads must furnish the public with reas-
enable express facilities, but whether
they must carry these particular carriers
for the purpose of enabling them to
do the express business over their own
lines
''The decree was therefore reversed, |
and the suits were remanded with direct
ions to dissolve the injunction. This
decision makes it clear that upon the ex-
piratiOn of existing contracts railway
may decline to carry the goods |
and messengers of the express companies
and perform such service themselves |
through their own employees. If I mis- |
take not the temper of the times there
are stormy days ahead for the express