The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-12-08
FoR The cLAE1ox
FoR The CLAR1oxl
RAILROADS AND THE SUPREME
COURT OF TIE UNITED STATES.
W. i.

Ii u Qeclsl0n recently maze Dy TINS 4
curt is correctly reported in late issue +
t TIE CLARION, a new departure has )
ertainly been taken by it, and one :
which may well startle and alarm the
ountry As reported, decision has
low been made, that "a statute of State ]
which attempts to regulate the fares and
.harges by railroad companies, trlthin ais
units, for transportation which consti-
utes commerce among the States, Is
lot valid law. In no other case, It Is
certain, has this judicial COLOSSUS gone
20 far in the direction of overruling its
previous utteranees and rulings, and IN its
strides towards erecting at " ashlngton
a consolidated, central, and overshadow-
ing government. If this decision stands
nothing heretofore decided, and no prin-
ciple heretofore affirmed and re-afirmed
by this august tribunal, can be relied
upon as settled law
This court, until now. has properly |
been consistent in holding that no State
could impose duty on freights exported |
or imported across its territorial bound |
aries, or tax on what was so transport |
ed, within its limits, or could ii any |
way Obstruct or embarrsss such trans
portation, or in regard thereto make any |
distinction between its own citizens or
their property, and the citizens or their
property, of other States. Bat as to the
mere cost of transportation, the ruling
has uniformly been, that it did not
amount to commercial regulation.
In Reading Railroad Company V.
Pennsylvania, Is Wall, 232, this subject
is deliberately considered, and the dis
tinctiOn is drawn by the court, between
a mere tax or charge upon transporta
ton, and the price exacted for 1t, and
the conclusion reached and announced,
is that the law in question imposed a
tax, and for this reason was unconstitu
tional. From the reasoning of the court
it is manifest that the court was PIE
pared to sustain the law in the event it
had been held to be mere regulation
of the cost of transportation, and not a
tax. II speaking of the power of Con
gress over commerce, the court said "a
power to prevent embarrassing restric-
tions by any State was the thing de-
sired Now this view of the subject,
certainly excludes the idea that the reg
ulatiOn of the cost of transportation was
power which had been conferred upon
| Congress. In this case the court says,
further:
eve eonceds the right of the owners
of artificial highways whether such owners be the
| sta grantees of franchises from the State To
exact what they please for the OF their high
1 ways. > " +" The tax is not compensation for
services rendered BY her or her agents 1t is some
thing beyond the cost of transportation the ord-
| nary charges therefor. = tax is a de-
mand of sovereignty; toll is demand OF proprie-
torship. The levied by this act is therefore
| toll. 1t Is not exacted in compensation Tor the
| use of the roadway" 10 Wall, 276-7.
Now, if the power of Congress over
Interstate commerce, includes the power
to regulate the charge for freights and
fares, why this labored effort ON the
part of the court to establish the fact
that the State legislation which was in
question imposed a tax upon transporta-
ton, and was not Intended to secure
compensation for it2 If law imposing
tax upon transportation, and one reg
ulating its compensation, were alike a
regulation of commerce, all this was
certainly work of supererogation.
In the case of Railroad Company v
Maryland, q Wall, 456, this subject has
again been considered by the court, and
the conclusion reached stated as fol
lows:
'This, Transportation by Iandl when the eonsti-
tuition was adopted, entirely performed OF
common roads, and in vehicles drawn by animal
power, None at that day imagined that the roads
and bridges of the country Except when the latter
| crossed navigable strea ms not entirely sub
ect, both as TO their construction, repair and man
agenent to Sfdfe regulation and control They wer'
all made either by the States under theil
authority. The power OF the state to impose o.
Authorize such tells as it fit, unquestioned
No one then supposed that the wagons of th,
| country, which were their vehicles of commerce, o
the horses by which they were drawn, were subject
| of
| and merchandise long as il was free to OF,
person to another TO the citizens of other state
| as To the citizens of the state in which ii wa
performed, not regarded as unc0nstltutionaily
= | restricted and trammeiled by tolls exaeteti OF
bridges or tuinpikes, whether belonging to the Stat
| OF 10 private pelsons- Aud when IN progress o
time, canals were constructed, amount OF toll
which was exacted therein by the state or the com
panles that owned them, was ever regarded as al
Infringement Of the constitution When constructe,
by the state ITSELF they might be the source o
| revenues largely exceeding the outlay withOu
exciting even the question OF constitutlonalty. 5
when by the Improvements and discoveries 0
mechanical science, railroads came TO be built
furnished with all the apparatus OF rapid and al
absorbing transportation, no one imagined that III
state, if Itself OF the work might not exac
any amount of toll or fare freight, OF authoriz
its citizens or eorlorstions if owners, TO do tn
| same. y There are positions which mus
be conceded No one has ever doubted them. Thi
unlimited right Of the STATE 10 charge, % Guth0ris
others 10 charge toll freight, fare for trasporfGtio
on its roads, canals, and rail Dads, arises from tn
simple Tact that they are its works, or con
4
1t has right 10 exact compensation for their
1t has a discretion to the of that com
. pensstion. That discretion is legslatiye-a sev
ereign discretion, and in its very nature
unrestricted and uncontrolled. The security OF tn
public against any abuse OF this discretion reside
in the responsibility TO the public of those who, 70
| the time being, officially invested with it Il
this respect it is like all other legislative powe
when not controlled by specific constitutions
provision, and the courts presume that II ri
? be exercised detrtRaentGifg.
'The exercise of power the part OF a State
very different from the imposition of tax dut
, upon the movements or operations OF commerc
| between the states. such an imposition, whethe
| relating to persons or goods, have decided tn
States cannot make, because it would be reguls
| ton of commerce between the States in a name
in which uniformity is essential to the rights of all
and therefore, requiring the exclusive Legislation
OF Congress. 1t is tax because OF the transports
ton, and is, therefore, virtually tax tn
transportation, and not in any compensate
the, efr, for the franchises enjoyed by the cor
! poration that performed it." 81 Vail
Here is plainly recognized the dis
, tlnction in question, to-wit: that willis
tax or direct restraint upon transpor
] tation by State is unconstitutional,
compensation therefor, whether regu
lated by the corporation or the State, i
not unconstitutional.
In its opinion in this case, the cour
says further:
cit can hardly be supposed that individual State.
as far they have reserved, or stiIl possess, III
power to interfere will be so regardless Of their ow
interest as 70 allow an obstructive policy to pre-
| vail"
Commercially, this is but one country. and in
tercourse between all its points should Be as free
due compensation to the carrier interest eiH oilot'
| Wall, 474.
This question came again before tn.
court in the case of Gloucester Ferr,
Company v. Pennsylvania, ia Z. S.
1876, and, what is worthy of notice, tn,
opinion was delivered by Mr.. Justic,
Field, whose record shows that he is b,
no means an anti-railroad or an anti
monopoly judge.
The Legislature of Pennsylvania pass
ed an act declaring that all corporation
doing business in the commonwealth, OF
having capital employed therein, sex
cept foreign insurance companies, bank
and savings Institutions, shall be subiec
to, and pay into the treasury of tn,
commonwealth annually, tax TO b,
computed In the manner prescribed il
the act.
1t was under the authority of thil
act that the taxes in question wer.
stated against the company by the Au
ditor- General and the State Treasurer
| The Gloucester Ferry Company re
sisted the enforcement of this alleged
law, and the Supreme Court of the
United States in passing upon its con
stitutionality, Mr.. Justice Field, speak.
ing for the court, said:
Commerce among the States consists of inter.
course and uafhc between their citizens >
| The power 10 regulate that commerce, well q.
com nerce with foreign nations, vested in Congress
Ia the power 10 prescribe The rules by which il shall
be governed, that is the conditions upon which il