The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-04-02

Inc TWO decisions OF the supreme
Court of the United States in regard to
the right of parallel or competing lines
Of railroads to consolidate establishes an
important principle. In the first place,
they recognize and assert the rights Of
the public as against corporations. The
courts Of the country. especially the
federal courts. and perhapsI the SUI
preme Court most of any, have often
been charged with favoring corporations
as against the people. 1t is true this
charge has come for the most part from
persons who are not capable of under
standing the true bearing of judicial
decision, and who do not realize that
corporations have legal rights which the
courts must recognize, yet it is one of
the stock charges of a certain class Of
agitators and demagogues.
The cases recently decided presented
different features. but the effect of the
two decisions is that parallel or COM
peting lines of railroads cannot CONSOLE
date without special authority in their
charters to do SO. and that even after
such authority has been granted the
same power that granted it, namely. the
Legislature, may revoke it. The first
case related to the consolidation Of the
Great Northern Railroad Company, in
corporated under the laws of Minnesota,
with the Northern Pacific. The original
charter gave the company the right to
connect or consolidate with any line run
ming in the same general direction. In
1874 the Minnesota Legislature passed a
law prohibiting parallel lines Of railroad
from consolidating. AS the two roads
named were about to consolidate. not
withstanding the act of the Legislature.
claiming that it could not revoke privi-
lege after it had once been granted in a
charter and become a vested right. a
stakeholder in one of the roads applied
in the United States Circuit Court for an
injunction to prevent the consolidation,
and the question was certified TO the SUI
preme Court for decision as to whether
the Legislature had right to enact the
restricting law. The court decides that
1t had, on the ground that competing
lines are for the interest or the people,
and Ii is the right and duty OF legisla-
lures to protect the rights of the people
against monopolies. AS to the tendency
of such consultations in general and the
right Of the people, through their legis-
latures. to prevent the growth of monop-
olies, the Supreme Court said
Whether the consolidation of competing
lines viii necessarily result in an increase or
rates. or whether such consolidation has gen.
orally resulted in a detr.ment TO the public
II beside the question. Whether IL has that
effect or not 1t certainly puts ii in the power
of the consolidated corporation to give it
that effect-in short. IL puts the public at the
mercy of the corporation. There Is. and has
been for the past 800 years. both in England
and this country, popular prejudice against
preston in innumerable acts of legislation.
We cannot say that such prejudice is not
well founded. IL is matter on which the
Legislature Is entitled to pass Judgment.
dangers TO the moral sense or the conf
munity incident to such great aggregatons
OF wealth. which. though indirect, are even
more insidious in their influence, and such
as have awakened feelings of hostility, which
have not failed 10 md expression in legis-
lative acts.
Every word of this bears against
monopolies and in favor OF the right of
legislatures TO control them.
The facts In the other case were some
what different. but the general principle
enunciated was the same. The Louis
Vile & Nashville railroad being about
| to purchase and consolidate with the
| Chesapeake s. Ohio Southwestern under
q clause In It's charter granted in 1850.
| authorixing It to purchase and hold any
road constructed py another compsny,'