Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-01-24
RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE
RAILR0ADs.

The United States Supreme Court,
on January I'd, rendered its decision
in the case Of the Railroad Commits
sioners of Mississippi. appellants,
against the Farmers Loan & Trust
Company. This is one of the Mis-
sissippi Railroad Comni ssion cases.
Ii was brought by the Farmers Loan
and Trust Company of New York to
enjoin the Railroad Commission of
Mississippi from enforcing against
the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Compa-
ny the provisions of the statute of
Mississippi, passed In 1884. to pro.
vide for the regulation of freight and
passenger rates on railroads in the
State. and for other purposes. The
statute declares that the railroads in
the State are public highways. over
which all persons have equal rights,
and makes any discrimination In
rates q penal otfense. 1t further pro-
vides for the appointment of Board
of Commissioners, and colfers upon
1t the power OF revising the tariff of
charges, and of exercising a certain
degree of supervision over the roads.
The companies are required to make
certain reports periodically to the
Commissioners. The officers of the
roads are made liable to a fine for vi.
olstion or non compliance with the
provisions of the act, which fine may
be collected through the courts. This
and certain acts relating to the char.
tering and control of the railroads of
the State are cited at length In the
opinion. The Circuit Court rendered
a decree allowing the injunction. and
from that decree the Commissioners
The argument in support
VI the decree is that the statute under
which the Commissioners are to act
impairs the obligation aud charter
OF the company; that 1t is .
regulation of commerce smeng the
States; that il denies the company
the equal protection Of the laws sHd
deprives il of its property without
due process of law; that it confers
both legislativ and judicial powers
upon the Commission. aud is thus re.
pugnant to the constitution of Missis-
sippi. and that 1t is void on its face
by reason OF its Inconsistencies aud
uncertainties. The Supreme Court
finds that the charter OF the compa-
NY contains ne contract the obligs.
ton OF which Is in any way impaired
by the statute under which the Com
are to act. II finds that
The Commission is In express terms
prohibited by the act of the State
from interfering with the
charges OF the company for the trans
portation of persoas or property
through Mississippi from one State to
The Commissioners have
A. yet undertaken nothing in conflict
with the constitution of the United
States. The great purpose. Ii says,
Of the statute in question Is to tx
of charges, and to regu-
late in some matters of q police ma
ture the use Of railroads in the State
In Its general scope II is constitution
al, and II applies equally to oil per-
sons OF corporations owning or oper.
siipg railroads in the State. The Su-
preme Court OF Mississippi has al
ready declared that the statute IL not
repugnant to the State constitution,
and Ia It's opinion the Supreme Court
Of the United States concurs 1T
il difficult to understand" the
opinion says In conclusion, precise
ly on what ground We are expected
10 decide that this statute Is so incon-
sistent and uncertain a. to render II
absolutely void on Ito face The Ar
gument on this branch Of the contro-
versy contains very much that
might have been useful II addressed
to the Legislature while considering
the bill before Its enactment, but We
dnd nothing In II to show that the
statute a. II now stands Is altogether
void and imperative. When the
has acted and proceed
ings are had TO enforce what they
have done, questions msy arise Is to
The validity of some OF the various
provisions which will be worthy OF
consideration, bat We are unable 10
say that a. q whole the statute 10 In
valid" The decree OF the Circuit
Court Ii reversed and the cause IL re-
nanded, with instructions to dismiss
the bill. The opinion Vas delivered
by the Chief Justice. Justices Field
and Harlan dissented from certain Of
the opinions expressed by the Court
10 the case. but coucurred In the
Judgment Justice Blstchford did
not take part 10 the decision.
A similar decision vas rendered in