The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-12-08

In accordance with this view of the
subject the court decided Mann V. Ilii- /
nois, 81 Z. s, I15. The Chicago, Bur
lington & Quincy Railroad Company |
V. Iowa, 81 L. s, 155, Wise nsin & Ct.
Paul Railroad Co. V. Blake, "a Z. S, $50;
Ruggles Y. Illinois, los Z. 3, 526; Peik
V. Chicago & Northwestern Railrosd
Company, and Lawrence '. Same, "a {.
S, l64. In these two last cases, Chief
Justice Waite says:
These suits present the single question of the
power Of the Legislature Of Wisconsin 10 provide
By Law for maximum Of charges TO be made By
the Chicago aud Norgh western Railroad Company
for fare and freight upon the transportation OF pei
~ outside the SAFE and 5r0agh1 lrfhi 4, taken p
'Hssds and carried ss5sbost." "a l. s, rs.
This series of decisions was re-adopted
and re affirmed by the court so recently
as last January, in the decision of the
Railroad cases involving the Railroad
Commission law of this State. In its
opinion the court refers to by name and
re-endorses nearly every one of the fore
going cases; and, moreover, in this opin-
ion we find this paragraph;
| The commissioners have power, 1, to approve,
and ii need be 10 the tariff ei charges for trans
portatOn, both OF persons ana prop rty, by which
/ the company must BE governed, and 10 ex-Tc.Se 4
watchful and careful supervision over suca tsrIt
70 notify the eomnanv Of the times and places hen
| AMI where the Qropriety Of a change IN existing
tariffs viii be cousidered g. to entertain complaints
made by any person against a tariff which has
been approved, On the ground that the me Is IA
any respect for more than just compensation OF
that the changes amount 10 operate 10 eAeei
unjust diserl iniloIi and after due notIee 10 Iat
company and proper iEquiry had, % make any
changes that may be deemed proper; T. TO repair &c
the scene o. an accident within the state attended
With serious personal injury and inquire into tins
facts and circumstances thereof. be recorded II
the minutes Of their proceedings and embraced IL
the annual report they required TO make 10 th'
governor Tor transmission 10 the Legislature; D. Il
inspect the depots OF all railroads operated in tbs
state and % see that comfortable reception room
are provided ead o. TO institute All necessary suit
Tor the recovery OF the penalties prescribed by th
statute Tor violation OF its provisions The FRS
three OF these relate entirely proceedings Tor Ok
ing charges and Supervising the tariff, and the rest
| Ike the COrrelative requirements OF the company
are mere police regulations which the commissioner
are TO enforce. All this comes clearly within tn
supervising power Of tue state in the administra
ton of the affairs of It's domestic corporations.
Without compensation, no transpor
! tation by common carriers could be had
and surely it Is an absurdity to call tina
tax, or burden on, or obstruction Z
commerce, which is as indispensable
1 thereto, as breathing is to the livin
body. Furthermore, how can il be tina
t a railroad, the mere creature of tn
State and confessedly deriving all ii
t powers from the State, can be clothe
D by the State with a power denied b
a the Federal Constitution, to the Stat
+ itselfH
\ The court denies to the State TIL
: power of regulating freights and fare
: from the apprehension that it might b
. so used as to embarrass or obstruC
: commerce; but at the same time Ell
5 trusts this power to the railroad cOrp'
d rations, under the supervision of til
5 judiciary. Now the Judiciary is a
agency of the State, no less than a Raj
rs road Commission, and why is it that Il
lie one agency is less trustworthy than Il
. other? The objection to the judiciar.
u in this particular, is, that it is necessi
e rily burthened with too many oth'
:. duties, and that its organization an
e machinery are not we'll adapted to Il
d purpose. But is it not impossible
vest in any department of governmel
sufficient power 10 be useful, without
n being at the same time liable 10
y abused?
y Rut the correct answer to this judici
- scarce crow was made by the court
- the case of Railroad Company V. Mar
u land, 81 Wall, 475, when it declare
. Mr.. Justice Bradley speaking for it:
10 eve are bound to sustain the constitutional p
{ negatives and powers of the States well as the
3 of the United States, whenever they are broug
before us for adjudication, no matter Whdt may
as the consequences.