The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-06-13
CITED JUDGE SPEER'S OPINION
o. s. SUPREME COURT QUOTES HIS
ROWENA CLARKE DECISION.

vannah and Plant System-Hart's
Road Cases Also Referred to by
Justice Brown in His Decision in
the Louisville and Nashville Case
in Kentucky-The Right of a state
to Prevent the Control of COmpet-
ing Lines by a Rival Railroad.
The decision Of the supreme court Of the
| United States in the case of the Louisville
| and Nashville Railroad Company VS.. the
state of Kentucky, involving the power Of
a state to prevent the control of Compel
ing lines. by a rival railroad has been Of
hcially published.
The opinion of Judge Speer in the Row
ena Clarke case and two other cases de-
clded by him, are cited by the supreme
court in support of its holding. These are
| the cases of Langdon vs.. Thomas P.
Branch where Judge Speer held that the
Central railroad could not control the Ma
con, Dublin and Savannah Short line, and
the case of Hamilton vs.. the Savannah,
Florida and Western, where he held that
the Plant system could not control a
| parallel road from Jesup to Harris Cross
ing on the St. Mary's river The late JUS
tice Jackson had nullihed the constitution
Of Georgia because in his opinion the state
could not control a matter which might
interfere with interstate commerce.
Extracts from the late case win show
that the supreme court regards this view
as erroneous. After citing several cases
the court through Mr.. Justice Brown re-
marks:
We think that the principle of these
cases applies. to the power Of the legisla-
tufe 70 FORBID the consolidation of parallel
or competing lines, whenever in lis oDin-
ION, such consolidation is calculated to af-
| rect lnJuriously the public interests. Not
only IL the purchase of stock in another
company beyond the power Of a railroad
corporation in the absence of an express
| stipulation IN the charter, but the pur-
! chase Of such stock IN a rival and com
pelh9 line is held to be contrary to pub
nc pOllcy and void. The doctrine is pecu-
nary applicable to this case in which it is
SHOWN that the Chesapeake Company was
largely aided in its construction by contri-
buttons from municipalities along its line
for the very purpose of obtaining compe-
| ution with the Louisville and Nashville
Company-a purpose which would of
course, De defeated by combination with
power 70 consolidate with other roads is
! not, as the plaintin in error suggests. CALI
cd Tor by any new view OF commercial
which has obtained in Kentucky since
1903, in Minnesota since 1874 in Ohio since
1901, in New Hampshire since 1867 and by
more recent enactments In some dozen
| other states-a policy which has not only
FOUND a place in the statute law of such
| states as apprehended evil effects from
such consolidation, but has been declared
| by the courts 70 be necessary to protect
! the public from the establishment of mon
! opoIes. I2deed, the unanimity with which
/ the states have leg.slated against the
| consolidation of competing lines shows
/ that It IS not the result of a local preiu-
/ dice, but of a general sentiment that such
/ monopolies are reprehensible4
The general rule holds good that what
| ever IS contrary TO public policy or in
| imicable to the public interests Is subiect
! power wi
| in legislative control, and in the exertion
| or such power the legislature Is vested
| with large discretion, which IL exerted
| bona hda for the protection of the public
| Is beyond the reach of judicial inquiry
But little more need be said in answer
! to the final contention of the plaintiff In
error, that the assumption Of a right
| 10 forbid the consolidation of parallel
! and competing lines is an interference
WIN the power OF congress over interstate
! commerce; The same remark may be
| made with respect to all police regula-
tons or interstate railways. All such
/ regulations interfere Indirectly more or
! less, with commerce between the states
| in the fact that they impose a burden
! upon the instruments of such commerce.
! and add something to the cost of trans
! poftatlon by the expense incurred in con-
| forming to such regulations. These are
! however, like the taxes imposed upon
! railways and their rolling stock which
| are, more or less according to the policy
of the state, within which the roads are
| operated, but are still within the coru>
| potency OF the legislature TO impose. 1t
! is otherwise, however with respect to
| taxes upon their franchises and receipts
! from interstate commerce, which are
! treated as a direct burden There are GER
tain intimatiOns in some Of our opinions.
! which might perhaps lead to an Inference
! that the police power cannot be exercised
| over a subject confined exclusively to
! congress by the federal constitution. But
| while this Is true with respect to the
| commerce Itself, 1t is not true with respect
| to the instruments of such commerce.
said
| quoted with appreciation in Plumley VS.
! Massachusetts that in comforting upon
| congress the regulations of commerce, il
| was never intended to cut the states of
| from legislating on all subjects relating
| to the health, life and safety of their
| citizens, though the legislation might in
| directly affect the commerce of the
| country. Legislation, in a great variety of
| ways, may affect commerce and persons
engSgea IN IL WITHOUT constituting a
| regulation of 1t, within the meaning of
the constitution and it may
legislation of state not direct
its regulations, but relating to the rights,
duties and liabilities of citizens, ana
only lnoTectty ana remotely affecting the
| operations OF commerce, is of obligatory
| force upon citizens within its territorial
| jurisdiction, whether on land or water,
| or engaged in commerce, foreign or inter>
| state or in any other pursuits.
1T has never been supposed that the
| dominant power of congress over inter-
STATE commerce LOOK from the states the
power of legislation with respects to the
| instruments of such commerce. so far as
| the legislation was within it's ordinary po>
| lice powers Nearly all the railways in
| the country have been constructed under
| state authority, and Ii cannot be supposed
that they intended to abandon their pow
er over them as soon as they We're fin
| ished. The power to construct them in
| wolves. necessarily, the power 10 impose
such regulations upon their operation a.
| a sound regard for the interests of the
| cfroI 10 II
the division of authority, with respect to
/ interstate railways, congress reserves to
| itself the superior right to control their
commerce. and forbid Interference there
| with: while to the states remains the
power to create and to regulate he IN
| struments of such commerce, so far as
necessary to the conservation of the pub
! lie interests.
IF it be assumed that the states have
no right to forbid the consolidation of
| competing lines, because the whole sub
ject is within the control of congress-, it
| would necessarily follow that congress
! would have the power to authorize such
| consolidation in defiance of state leeisIa-