The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1886-01-28
The Mississippi Case.

The Union last Saturday pun
lished the full text of the opinion
delivered by Chief Justice Waite
in the Mississippi railroad com
mission 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
suggestions to US. Tennessee has
sought to regulate freight rates by
a commission and the federal court
sustained ain Injunction to restrain
them from exercising extraordinary
power. The law was then repealed,
but there is strong opinion in ia
vor of re-enactIng that or SINH
lar law. 1t has been asserted in
responsible newspapers the Missls-
sippi opinion decided the points in
the Tennessee case in favor Of the
commission. Under this impress
sion, the inclination that already
exists to open up this old sore
again in Tennessee may gain such
Roadway as to precipitate it again
into state politics. The CITIZEN
said last week that the cases were
entirely dissimilar and that the as
sertion that the opinion decided
the Tennessee case was wholly
without foundation. Now we have
the full opinion before, and we find
that it not only does not reverse
the circuit court, but in effect sus-
tains it. The law in Mississip-
pi granting charter to the road
gave the power to fix rates, without
limit, to the road directors, and the
court holds that the state, not
naming a maximum, has power to
see that the rates SO fixed are rea-
sonable. In Tennessee the law
granting charter fixed a maximum
limit above which the road cannot
charge, and the court has held that
the state thus surrendered its pow
er to regulate within that limit.
Hear this language: "In Mum
VS.. Illinois, etc., this court decided
that, as to natural persons and cor
porations subject to legislative con-
troll, the state could, in cases like
this, fix a maximum beyond which
any charge would be unreasonable,
and that such maximum when fixed
would be binding on the courts in
their adjudications as wen as on the
parties in their dealings" The
opinion then goes on to argue that
the state of Mississippi. not having
surrendered its power by naming a
maximum, retains the right to fix
reasonable changes.
Look again: The opinion refers
approvingly to another railroad case
that was decided by the MISSISSIPPI
pi supreme court, where the charter
did name a maximum limit, and it
was held that the state thus surren-
dered control of rates within thelim-
it-exactly the,Tennessee case. The
chief justice holds in effect, in short,
that the Mississippi charter, con-
tanning no maximum limit, is not a
renunciation by the state of control
of rates, and sit is only when there
is unmistakable manifestation of
purpose (by the Legislature to
place the unrestricted right in the
corporation to determine rates of
compensation that the power of the
legislature afterward to interfere
can be denied"
We are fully convinced that the
supreme court has indicated here
what its opinion would be In the
Tennessee case, and we are thus
particular to acquaint our readers
of the points decided SO that we
may have a perpetual rest on this
vexing matter. We have consider
ed always that this was the ultimate
and just result and now that it has
come and is final of the issue, let's
steer,clear of it hereafter as party