The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-01-05
The SUPREME COURT.
Decisions Rendered Relating 10 Express
Companies and Railroads.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4-The United States
Supreme Court to-day affirmed the decision
of the lower court in a suit brought by the
Pacific Express Company against James NJ.
Seibert and John NJ. Wood, Auditor aud
AttOrney-General respectively of Missouri.
BY this suit the express company sought to
restrain and enjoin the collection Of the tax
of 81 on each 500 of receipts levied by the
act of the State Legislature against ex-
press companirs doing business within the
State. The company's bill attacked the
constitutionality Of the act as an interfer-
ence with interstate commerce, declared
that 1t violated the Fourteenth Amendment
giving equal protection to all, and also being
contrary to the provision of the Missouri
State Constitution, requiring that all laws
shall be uniform. The court, in an opinion
by Justice Lamar, says the contention that
the tax is levied upon interstate commerce
is unsOund, and adds: The tax does not
relate to interstate business, but is entirely
and expressly limited to receipts for buSi-
ness done entirely within the State, and it
was not the intention of the Legislature to
interfere with or tax interstate commerce.
in any way whatever. The other points
raised, it also holds, are not well taken for
the reason that the tax applies equally to
THE YAKIMA CITY CASE.
The Supreme Court also rendered a de-
cision to-day in favor of the Northern Pa
cifc Railroad Company in mandamuS suit
brought against il by the Territory of Wash
ingtOD, eX rel Hiram Dustin, Prosecuting
Attorney of Yakima County, to compel the
railway to maintain station and stop its
trains at Yakima City. Justice Gray reu-
dered the opinion of the court. Justices
Brewer, Field aud Harlan dissented. The
bill set forth that Yakima, a city at the time
of the building of the road, was the county
seat and the largest town in that county,
and the object of the railroad company re-
fusing to make Yakima City a railway sta
tiOn was to ruin the town and to enhance
the value of the town site of North Yakima,
which 1t bad located on uuImpr0Ved lands
belonging TO the railway company. Justice
Gray, in the opinion of the court, says the
writ Of mandamuS to compel ii railroad cor
pOratiO1 to do particular act in construct
ing its road or buildings or in running its
trains, can be issued only when there
is a specific legal duty on its part to do that
act and clear proof or breach OF duty.
The courts have so held, even in the matter
of establishing station at the terminus Of
a road. The difficulties in the way of issu-
ing mandamuS are MUCH increased when
it is sought to compel road to stop It's
trains at a particular place. The location
of stations and warehouses for receiving
aud delivering passengers and freight iu-
wolves comprehensive view Of the inter
eSts of the public as weilaS of the corpora
tion. and the consideration Of .mapy cir
cumStanees concerning the amount el bush
ness and the convenience Of particular
location, which are mare appropriate 70 be
determined by the Directors of the COM
pany, or In the case OF the abuse OF their
discretion by the Legislature or by the ad-
mnistrative boards entrusted by the LegiS=>%.
lature with that duty, than by the ordinary:
judicial tribunals. Justice Gray says the
charter of the company does not impose any,
specific duty as TO the maintenance and siZ5 8
OF its stations, and that TO compel the Direc-
tors to be controlled by the courts by wrfts
of mandamus in establishing Statiens would
be inconsistent with previous decisions.
The findings of the lower court he says.
show that the people living in the sur
rounding country considered as cOmmu-
nifty would be better accommodated at
North Yakima than at Yakima City. Ths
company denies the fraudulent intent
charged by Yakima City, and it was not
found by the jury. The fact that the town
of North Yakima was laid out by the COM
pany on its own land cannot impair the
rights of the inhabitants OF that town.
A DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Brewer rendered a vigorous oral
dissent, which was concurred in by Justices
Harlan and Field. He said that when the
railroad built its line it f0uHd city already
established, the county seat and the largest
public interest required that a station
should be established there Instead, the
railroad company went three or four miles
further along, and laid out town on its
own land. No reason was given for such
a course. The railroad neglected and
abandoned its public duty to su6SeTve its
private ENDS. Any one who knows the
progress of railway building knows that it
is common thing to pull down one town
and build up another in this manner. An
established town offers insufficient bonus
for station sometimes. The dissenting
Justices, he said, thought the courts had
sufficient power TO restrain in such pro-
ceedIngs.
THE NEBRASKA GOvERNoRsHIP,
The oyd-Thayer case, involving the
question of the citizenship OF Boyd, and as a
consequence his eligibility to the office of
Governor of Nebraska, TO which he was
elected, was not decided by the United
States Supreme Court to-day. An inquiry in
10 the matter developed the fact that only
eight Justices sat in the hearing OF the case,
Justice Bradley being absent on account OF
illness. The premature announcement that
the court had decided ia favor of Boyd by
vote of SIX to three cannot be correct there
fore, so far as respects the majority by
which the decision is alleged to have been
reached. The Justices, OF course, would
say nothing whatever as TO the case In adj
vance of the announcement from the beneh
of the decision
EXPENSES OF \ RAILROAD COMMISSION.
The court sustained the law of the State
of South Carolina. which provides that the
expenses of the State Railway Commission
be borne by the railroads doing business
within the State, each being taxed proper
tionate share of maintaining the commits
sion, on the basis of the mileage within the
State.