Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1886-02-06
Tho MlssIsslnpI Case.
IPnIaslsl CItIzon.l

IfNlNki tltNen'l
Tho Union last Saturday published
the full text Of the opinion delivered by |
Chief Justice Waite in the Mississippi
railroad commission case. 1t is eight
columns OF fine print and precludes
lengthy synopsis. 1t is Of importance
to us only in its bearing upon our
troubles on this question and its sug-
gestons to us. Tennessee has sought
to regulate freight rates by commits
sion and the federal court sustained an
injunction to restrain them from exer
cising extraordinary power. The law
was then repealed, but there is a strong
opinion in favor OF rc-enactng that or a
similar law. II has been asserted in
responsible newspapers the Mississippi
opinion decided the points in the Ten
nessee case in favor OF the commission.
Under this impression, the inclination
that already exists to open up this old
sore again in Tennessee may gain such
headway as to precipitate it again into
State politics. The Citizen said last
week that the cases were entirely dis
similar and that the assertion that the
opinion decided the Tennessee case was
wholly without foundation Now we
have the full opinion before us and we
find that IL not only does not reverse
the circuit court, but in effect sustalns
it. The law in Mississippi granting
charter to the road gave the power to
fix rates, without limit, to the road d.
rectors, and the court holds that the
State, not naming maximum, has
power to see that the rates so fixed are
reasonable. In Tennessee the law
granting charter fixed maximum
limit, above which the road cannot
charge, and the court has held that the
State thus surrendered its power to
regulate within that limit.
Hear this language: In Mum VS..
Illinois, etc, this court decided that
as to natural persons and corporations
subject to legislative control, the state
could, in cases like this, fix a maximum
beyond which any charge would be un-
reasonable, and that such maximum
when fixed would be binding on the
courts in their adjudications as we'll rs
on the parties in their dealings" The
opinion then goes on to argue that the
state of Mississippi, not having sur
rendered its power 10y naming max
imum, retains the right to tx reasona-
bic changes.
Look again: The opinion refers APP
proyingIy to another railroad case that
was decided by the Mississippi Supreme
court, where the charter did name a
maximum limit, and it was held that
the state thus surrendered control OF
rates within the limit--eXactly in the
! Tennessee case. The chief Justice
holk in effect, in short, that the Mfssis-
sippi charter, containing no maximum
limit, is not a remuneration by the state,
of control OF rates, and at is only when
there is unmistakHble manifestation Of
a purpose (by the leglslature) to place
the unrestricted right in the corpora
ton to determine rates Of compensation
that the power of the legislature after
ward to interfere can be denied"
| We are fully convinced that the gu
preme court has indicated here what
It's opinion would be in the Tennessee
case, and we are thus particular to ac-
quaint our readers OF the points deci
ded so that we may have perpetual
rest on this vexing matter, We have
considered always that this was the III
innate and just result and now that il
has come and is final of the issue, let,
steer clear OF it hereafter rs party.