New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-03-08
FAVORABLE TO THE ROADS.
NEBRASKA MAXIMUM FREIGHT RATE
CASE DECIDED.
-,,r UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECLARES
-ur STATE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
TT AUTHORIZES THE TAKING OF PROP
ERrY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW 49, THE OPINION RENDERED
BY JUSTICE HARLAN

ERrY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW THE OPINION RENDERED
BY JUSTICE HARLAN.
,rosb,ngton March THE United States SD
rar,e Court to-day rendered opinion in the
Nebraska maximum freight rate case. The opinion
which was handed down by Justice Harlan. held
the Nebraska law to be contrary to the NlNth
Amendment 10 the Constitution In that It author
tied the taking Of property without due process OF
law and was therefore invalid The opinion affirmed
~. decision of the Circuit Court OF Appeals for the
With Circuit, which was against the maximum
freight rate law and favorable 10 the railroads
This case was instituted test the validity OF
Law "a ssed BY the Nebraska Legislature In 1898.
nrescribing the maximum rates for the transporta-
,on Of freight by railroads within the State. The
act applies specifically TO freight whose transit
t4sins and ends in the State. and there was no
effort In It's to control interstate freignt
II affected al the railroads in the state ana the
railroad companies instituted proceedings. which
were terminated by to-days opinion by filing Dill
IN the Nebraska Circuit Court soon after the law
was enacted The object OF the bill was to secure
an order restraining the State OF Nebraska from
putting the law into force.
The law was attacked on the ground of It's unoon-
s,tutionality 1t was asserted that as the act ap-
piled only to State freights. 1t was chargeaoe with
a discrimination against them. and therefore an
tagonls,ic TO the spirit OF the XVIII Amendment
20 the Constitution The roads contended that the
maximum rate fixed unreasonable AND ruihous
10 them II also asserted that the act inter-
.ered with interstate commerce. The state met
these allegations with argument in support OF the
validity Of the law and also with the counf"r-charge
that the case OF which the Federal courts
could not properly take Jurisdiction
The decision IN the Circuit Court was delivered
by Justice Brewer Of the Supreme Court. who sus-
tanned the contention Of tho railroad companies
and held against the validity Of the law. HIS opin-
ION was based largely on the charge Of unTeason-
ableness He made a computation showing that
the reduction effected in freight rates amounted on
an average 2ee per cent. which. he held was 100
great a change This case has been twice argued
IN the Supreme Court, W. J. Bryan appearing as
on. OF the counsel for the State at the last hear
ing Much interest has been manifested In the de-
c,s,on ever since the case was docketed because of
the probable influence res alt favorable to the law
would have on legislation in other States
JUSTICE HARLAN'S OPINION.
In his opinion Justice Harlan first detailed the
facrs relating to the passage Of the act by the
Nebraska Legislature IN 1893 and then sKetched
briefly its provisions saying that among DINERS
was one TO Ak maximum freight rates on the rail-
roads OF the State and 10 classify Teiehts' lie
then took up in order the points at issue between
the State and the railroad companies. dealing hrst
with the question of the propriety Of considering
the Of equity rather than of lawf II
was contended in the argument that the railroads
had adequate remedy at law before the state
and Supreme courts. and that therefore the United
States Circuit Court sitting In equity was without
Jurisdiction. on this point he said:
6iction OF the Circuit Courts of the United States
for protecon of the rights Of one entitled upon
any ground to invoke the powers OF feae' La
statutes Of the particular State in which suit ma
be brought. One who is entitled to sue IN me req,
equity whenever the established principles and
and he be
Of his being allowed 10 sue DIT law IN d State court
along uIe the line Of any Of these railroads. out OF
which Of action might arise under the stat
ence Of equity could we'll he justified on the ground
that general decree accordng 10 me prayer %
give d remedy more certain and eflcacl9us than
the company in a court Of law for a court Of law
could only deal with each separate transaction IN
yolving the rates to be charged for transportation
The contention that the State was the real party
in interest and that therefore the Federal courts
could not take cognizance Of IT under the Kiln
Amendment to the Constitution was overrued. the
Court saying that the Federal courts had jurisdic-
ton because both of the diverse citizenship or
aenage OF the parties. and also on account OF the
fact that the act is attacked as contrary TO pro-
visions Of the Federal Constitution
IL was also contended that the act could not be
made applicable to the Union Pacific Railroad. be-
cause IT has Federal charter, and the act ere
atng the corporation had reserved 10 Congress the
right TO fix the rates on this line In certain con-
,neences hut the Court took the position that. as
Congress- had not awaited itself OF this privilege.
the states through which the Union Pacific passed
have the right 10 Ak rates. Justice Harlan SAID on
this point: -.
Vntn Congress in the exercise either or the power
specifically reserved by The elSnteen'n s.cuPn r OF
tryaiion made Of authority to add 10. alter. amend
repeal that act prescTioes rates 10 DC V.' %
by the railroad company III, remains Win .he
STATS through which the road passes 70 NIX rates
for transportation, beginning ana ehdhg WIN 'he'
respective limits.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN
Jrs,ice Harlan then quoted a number OF opinions.
.rd eaid tba. in view Of the adjudicatons ihe fol-
lowing principles must be regarded as settled
Frst-A railroad corporation Is person Wll'ln
the meaning of the XiNth Amendment declaring
thai no Stale shall deprive any person OF property
without due process OF law, ncr deny 10 any per.
son within It's Jurisdiction the equal protection OF
second-A State enactment regulation made
under The authority ot "a State enactment, esiab-
fishing such rates for the transpor,au0n O PEI Jh
carrie earning such compensation as under an
the CIRCUMSTANCES is just TO X ana 70 we Pupilc.
yould Deprive SUCH carrier OF us proPe'! 49, -
lection OF the laws and would, therefore. ot re-
pusnant TO the XVIII Amendment OF the Hohs'i'u-
u0n OF the United States.
Tkird-Whle rates for the transportation OF per-
sors and property within the limits Of ola'e are
Primarily for IT'S Determination, the question
whether they are unrea soDably low as 10 De
lrve the carrier OF It's property without suSh coIh-
Iensation the Constitution secures. ana mere
fore are without due process Of law, cannot be 80
oonclus vev determined by the Legislature of the
STATE or by regulations adopted under us author.
ny; that the matter may not become the subject OF
Judicial inquiry
This last proposition. Justice Harlan said. COW
cred the case In point. He then proceeded 10 make
------------------------