The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-09-03
THE DECISION AGAINST THE TEXAS
RAILROAD Commission LAW.

| State into force and effect upon tho ground
that the provisions OF the act, aimed ct regu-
lsting rates. were repugnant to the Consh-
tuition of the United States. In the meagre
reports of the decision that were sent out
great stress was laid upon the fact that the
| particular railroad which secured the In
junction. the Texas Pacific, was able to get
it's case into the United States Court oy
reason of the fact that the trustees IN
MORTGAGE on the road were citizens OF New
| York who. on account of their foreign citl-
| zenship. could sus in the United States
| Govt. and these brought the suit there
Mo-. the ground that enforcement OF the
| Texas act meant destruction OF the mort
gage which they represented.
We are unable to understand how the
| citizenship of the trustees could have any
bearing upon the matter of the jurisdiction
of the United States Court. If the question
! in the case whether the Texas railroad law
was repugnant TO the Constitution of the
| United States q citizen of Texas had every
right TO sue in the United States Court for
| Texas that foreigner had. as in such
case it 10 the question to be determined
which fixes the Jurisdiction of the United
States Court and not the citizenship of the
parties to the suit. (Smih Us. Greenl'o'c.
100 L. S. r.. 669)
The telegraph now informs us that the
Weatherford, Mineral Wells and North
western Railway Company has applied to
the Texas Railway Commissioners to ex-
empt it from the operation of the Texas
Railway Commission act upon the ground
that.the -,as Pacific railway, which, under
the operations of Judge Mccormick g in
junction. is able to set the Texas law at de-
fance. will make it no allowance in inter
changing freight and passengers for the
statements that the Railway Commission
requires it to make, and the Railway Com
mission has felt itself forced to grant the re-
quest. It would seem therefore that Judge
McCormick's decision, though operating
directly upon but one road, the Texas
Pacific, has in part wholly paralyzed the
action of the Texas Railroad Commission
law
As we have said, we have not seen Judge
McCormicks opinion. and we are therefore
in the dark as to the constitutional grounds
upon which he based it. Nevertheless, we
know very we'll what the law governing
such a case ought to be. and We know very
we'll what the Supreme Court of the United
States has made the law in such a case to
be. and we know also that it has made the
law what 1t ought not to be, and we have
decided opinion that il has made 1t con-
trsry to what Judge Mccormick has decided
it to be.
A State law which establishes railroad
commission charged with the duty of pre-
venting railroads from making discrimina-
tions against shippers that arise out of cor
rupt or improper practices is wise State
Law. But State Law which establishes
railroad commission charged with the duty
of interfering in any manner whatever with
rates that have been established by the rail
way management in obedience TO the law OF
supply and demand is a State law which
ought to be declared vicious from every
point of view and repugnant to that part Of
the Constitution of the United States which
forbids the States to deprive any one Of his
property without due process of law.
Nevertheless. the Supreme CURT of the
United States. consisting of Justices ap-
pointed to their places during and soon
after the war and reflective, therefore, of
the revolutionary sentiments that the war
engendered, has decided openly and fla
GRAVITY time and time again that the State
legislatures may place any regulations and
restrictions agreeable to them upon bust
nesses that are affected by puolic interest,
and that the prohibition of the Constitu-
ton is not intended 10 cover such cases.
They have in terms held this principle to
apply TO grain elevators and railroads and
let no one imagine that the decision is
based upon the ground that the Legislature
has reserved in the charter power to alter or
amend it. 1t is placed upon no such
ground. 1t is placed upon the radical
proposition that every business In which
the public has an interest is subject to the
control of the Legislature, although the
business in question is wholly established
with private means. The whole subject
was reviewed and the doctrine reaffrmed as
late as last February in the case of BUdd
as. Ne,o Yorb, 143 A. S. r.. SIT, by ex-
aiming which the reader can satisfy him.
self as to the law of the case.
The doctrine received its first indorse-
ment IN the Supreme Court of the United
States in 1876 in the case of Mum Us. HI
fois OF IT, s II ia whan 10 was most
powerfully dissented from by that rugged
old guardsman of the Constitution. Mr..
Justice Field. II is gratifying to see from
the growing dissent in the Court how the
common sense OF the country is rebelling
against it, When the question WAS there IN
FEBRUARY last that notable dissent of one
had grown to a dissent Of three, and the
two additional Justices were Brewer and
Brown, both young men appointed within
the past three years, and here Justice
Brewer recorded in burning and ever-to- be-
remembered words his Just adherence of
the proposition. lie said at page SOL:
The psternal theory of government is TO
me odious. The utmost liberty TO the indl-
vidual, and the fullest possible protection
to him and his property is both the lmita-
ton and duty of government. II it may
regulate the price OF one service, which is
not pubic service or tho compensation
for the use of one kind Of property which is
not devoted to public usa. why may it not.
with equal reason, regulate the price OF ali