The San Francisco call., 1896-05-09
Judge McKenna Talks Back and
Points Law With Farmers
and Ok Teams.
A POLE STAR FOR THE COURTS.
Two Features of a Day in Court
With State and Corporate Con.
ficting Rights.

A momentous battle over what shall be
the law of this great land on the funda-
mental rights of States and corporations
in their common relations was going on in
the United States Circuit Court during
two hours yesterday afternoon.
1t marked the very near approach of the
end OF the present struggle between the
Southern Pacific Railroad corporation and
the Railroad Commission, or rather the
State of California. Yesterday was ex-
pected to bring an end to the tedious argu-
ments, but Judge CARRIER, Who is making
the closing address, will not finish until
next Tuesday, when the case will come
up again.
OF course what was going on in the Cir
cult Court was but a part of the mo-
mentous battle referred to. But this
pending case is the latest one of the similar
contests between great railroad corpora
tions and States which have tried TO regu-
late them, which began but a few years
ago, and it will be an important factor in
final result of National importance.
Judge Mckenna's decision vii become
one of the decisions" in the Jurisprudence
of corporations to be quoted in accord
ance with the grasp and learning which
the man on the bench displays. The
court is but one remove from the one of
last resort, where the evidence, arguments
and decision will be reviewed and provide
more law on the great issue.
So it was deeply important lawmaking
which was going on yesterday. as It has
been for so many weeks. All the vital law
in the case is provided by the decisions OF
recent years. These decisions have con-.
strued constitutional and inherent rights
of persons. States and property, reversed,
modified and elaborated each other, and
so gradually evolved 10 its present stage
the law on State control of corporations.
1t is because this evolution is still in prog
ress, as Judge CARRIER Interestingly
showed, and because this case will posi-
bly, advance it another stage, that the case
has an importance besides that involved
in the question OF whether or not the
State OF California can regulate its rail-
roads with more than mere police power.
There were not q dozen people in the
chilly and quiet courtroom. For two hours
Judge CARRIER talked at the Judge and got
talked back to, while Judge Hayne now
and then interrupted with a vital Ques-
tion, and W. f. Aerrin, District Attorney
Foote ond two or three other attorneys
silently and intently followed the argu-
ment, which two stenographers were wig
Cling down.
All this tremendous array of argument
in this case is interesting to corporation
lawyers. Scattered through it are facts
and ideas OF general interest if they are
decisions and the disputing about consti-
tutional and common law and inherent
rights and all that is no circus to many
people.
But some days are more interesting than
others in the Circuit Court, as elsewhere,
and yesterday was a highly interesting
one.
What went on yesterday was exception
ally interesting for two things which were
the maiu features OF the proceedings. Judge
CARRIER boldly, strongly and insistently
proclaimed the doctrine of the sovereignty
of the corporation in the use of its prop
erty. He declared, in effect, that the rail-
road could charge a million dollars an
ounce q mile for hauling freight if it
wanted to, SO long as it didn't discrimin-
ate uniustly or commit extortion by cinch-
ing some poor fellow for $2,000, 900 an
ounce, if it got chance TO do so. Judge
CARRIER put the corporation doctrine of its
independent rights under the Federal con-
stitution and its denial of the rights OF
the State to interfere with the free use OF
its property in a stronger way than they
have been put during the argument.
The other feature of the day was an in
teresting colloquy between Judge CARRIER
and the court on the limitations of the
power of the State to regulate the cor
poration in the use of its property on one
hand, and the extent of the conflicting
property rights Of the corporation on the
other.
During this colIoquy layman could see
the vital legal issue in the case stand out
clearly and alone. The incident was a
cathodogIaph of the very inside of she
issue and of the partly formed legal doc
trine of vast significance which the courts
are slowly celebrating.
Where is the dividing line between the
two rights set in orposition-the right of
the State to regulate the corporation in
the use of its property and the right of the
corporation to Its property? Does the
right of the State end, as the Southern Pa
cific contends, with the exercise of police
powers in preventing wrongs of discrimi-
nation and the like, or may it go to the
extent of regulating prices to the point OF
confscation, and what is confiscation
The taking away of one dollar which tne
corporation might be able to earn by force
of monopoly or only the cutting down of
its income to q point below reasonable
return on irs capital? Has railroad q
right to stick out for any price for the use
of its property as hotel man might fol
the rent of his rooms. and does the Federal
constitution warn the State to let the cor
poration alone in this right? There is q
tangle of other things in the case, Of
course, but these were the questions thai
stuck out of yesterdays proceedings, anC
they are the vital ones of the litigation.
In beginning his address Judge CARRIER
went at lot of the decisions that have
DecH HdulcQ dDOuJ 50 lux
argument and argued that the later one.
greatly modified the earlier ones.
'.In the first opinion on this Issue the
court said that final power must lodge
somewhere. and that it should be in the
legislative power of the State and not in
the courts" said the advocate. sit fol.
lowed that the hundreds of millions oi
property in Illinois was subject to the
arbitrary power of the Legislature. with
no appeal but to the bailot-box. But il
was recognized that properly is safe from
cases following the Supreme Court said
I'VE must not be understood as going sc
far They said that in those cases tbs
reasonableness of the rates was not an
issue. Tney conceded power to the Legis.
lature but said there was limit TO which
it could go.
"What was that limit2 The constitu.
ton of the United States, whi,h says that
property shall not be taken without com.
pensation and that no rerson shall be de-
prived OF the equal protection ef the laws
sThe mower of the Railroad Commission