Omaha daily bee., 1898-03-08

cannot be deprived Il that right by reason
OF his being allowed to sue at law In II state
court on the same cause of action. The
transactions along the line OF any one OF
dhese railroads, out OF which causes OF ac-
ton might arise under ahe statute, ,rerso are 80
numerous and varied that the interferenee
of equity could well be justified upon the
ground that a general decree, according 10
the prayer of the bills, would avoid mul-
ffplicity OF suits and give remedy more
certain and efficacious than could be given
company In a court of law; for court ef
law could only deal with each seperate
transaction involving the rates to be charged
for transportation.
The contention that the etate was the real
party In interest and that therefore the fed
eral courts could not take cognizance OF II
under the eleventh amendment to the con-
stitution was Overruled, the court saying
that the federal courts had jurisdiction be-
cause both of the diverse citizenship or
auenage OF the parties. and also on account
of the fact that the act is attacked as con-
trary to the provisions of the federal con-
stltution.
II was also contended that the act could
not be made applicable to the Union Pacific
railroad because 1t has federal charter,
and the act creating the corporation had
reserved to congress the right to
AK the rates on this line in
certain contingencies. but the court took
the position that as congress has not availed
itself of this privilege the states through
which the Union Pacific passes have the
right to fix rates. Justice Harlan said on
this point:
Until congress, in the exercise either Of
eighteenth section OF the act CT 1862. or
ats rover under the general re servation made
of authority to add to, alter, amend or re-
peal that act, prescribes rates to be
charged by the railroad company. 1t remains
with the states through which the. road
ming and ending with their respective limits.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.
Justice Harlan then took up the constitu
tional questions involved. He said
BY. the fourteenth amendment it is pro-
yided that no state shall deprive any per
son of property without due process of Law
nor deny to any person within its jursd!c-
tion the equal protection of the laws.
That corporations persons within the
meaning of this amendment Is now settled
What amounts to deprivation of property
without due process of law or denial of
the equal protection of the laws. Is often
difficult to determine. especially where the
question relates to the property of quasi
public corporation and the extent to which
It may be subjected to public control. But
this court, speaking by Chief Justice Waite,
fix the charges by railroad companies for
the TRANSFORMATION of persons and property
within its own jurisdiction, unless re-
strained by valid contract or unless what is
done amounts to regulation of foreign or
interstate commerce, such power Is not with
out limit; and that under pretenSe Of regu-
lating fares and freights the state cannot
require railroad corporation to carry per
sons or property without reward neither
can 1t do that which in law amounts to the
taking of private property for public use
without just compensation or without due
Justice Harlan said that the following
principles must be regarded settled:
l. A railroad corporation is n person
within the meaning of the foul teenth anne nd
ment; declaring that no state shall deprive
any person of property without due process
of law. nor deny to any person within it's
the equal of the nTsI
the authority of a state enactment, estab-
lis1ing such rates for the transportation of
persons or property by railroad as will not
admit of the carrier earning such con1pcnsa-
ton under all the circumstances is just
to 1t and to the public. would deprive such
of law and deny to 1t the equal protection
of the laws and would. therefore, be re.
pugnant to the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution of the United States.
.. If the rates for transportation of per
and property within the limits of "a
state are primarily for It's determination,
the question whether they are 50 unreason-
ably low as. to deprive the carrier of its
property without such compensation as the
constitution secures. and, therefore, without
due process of law, cannot be so con-
clusively determined by the legislature of
the state or by regulations adopted under
its authority tina: the matter may not be-
come the subject of judicial inquiry.
This last proposition Justice Harlan said
covered the case in point. He then pro-
ceeded to make an exhaustive examination
into the effect OF the enforcement of the
rates prescribed upon the business OF the
different Nebraska lines. showing the reduc-
tion to amount to 30. so per cent for the years
1884, 1892 and 1898. The result was to show
that each Of the reads involved would for
this period have conducted their business at
a loss with only one or two exceptions and
those for only a short while.
Discussing the question as to what are
the considerations to which weight must be
given when we seek to ascertain the com
pensation which a railroad company is en-
titled to receive and prohibition upon the
of ba n denn p1
a deprivation by legislative decree of prop
erty without due process of law, Justice
Harlan said
Undoubtedly that question could be more
easily determined by n commission com
posed of persons whose special skill, oh.
servation and experience qua ifies them tC
rs Id do justice to the public as well as tt
those whose money has been used to con
a nf 5Sr The
spite the difficulties that confessedy attent
the proper solution of such questions. the
court cannot shrink from the duty to de.
termine whether 1t be true, as alleged. thai
the Nebraska statute invades destroys
rights secured by the supreme law of tn,
land.
No one. we take 1t. will contend that
state enactment is in harmony with thai
law simply because the legislature OF tho
state has declared such to be the case; fol
. that would make the state legislature the
although the constitution of the United
StateA and the LAWS made In pursuance
tneftOt are tne supreme law or the lana
anything in the constitution or laws of any
state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The idea that any legislature, state or fed
eral can concusvely determine for tht
people and for the courts that what it en-
acts In the form OF law. or what 1t author
.izeA its agents to do, Isl consistent with the
fundamental law is In opposition to tn,
theory of our institutions. The duty rest:
Mpon al courts. federal and state. wher
their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to see
to II that no right secured by the supreme
laN of the land Is impaired or destroyed by
legislation.
1t had been coptended on behalf OF the
law that the state OF Nebraska could legally
require local freight business to be con
Quoted even at an actual less, II the COM
pany earned its interstate business
enough to give it just compensation in re-
spect OF its entire line, and all its business
Interstate and domestic. The court did no,
iceept this view, Justice Harlan saying:
We cannot concur in this view In oui
judgment II must be held that the reason
ableness or unreasonableness of rates pre-
scribed by n state for the transportation OF
persons and property wholly within its lin
It's must be determined without reference tc
the business of an interstate character done