The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-03-08
Opinion Adverse to the Nebraska
Law BY Judge Harlan.
HE LOWER COURT is SUSTAINED.
The Act lis Held 10 lie Contrary "a
the Fourteenth ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
states Contentious Ovcrruicd.


) tenth amendment, in that II assisted ii
the taking of property without the process
OF law and was therefore invalid.
Justice IiarIans opinion affirmed the
opinion of the court OF appeals for the
Eighth circuit, which was against the
mixin.um freight law and favorable to The
railroads.
This case was instituted TO test the
validity OF law passed by the Nebraska
legislature in 1893 prescribing the maxi
| mum rates for the transportation OF freight
by railroads within the State. The act
! applies especially TO freight whose transit
begins anu enos IN the state, and there
| WAS no effort in its enactment to contlui
! interstate freight II anectou ali the raIi-
| ROADS IN the state ana the railroad com
| panies instituted the proceedings which
1 were terminated by today S opinion by fii-
| ing a bill In the Nebraska circuit court
| soon after the law was enacted The OBJ
| jeet of the bill was TO secure an order re-
| stralning the State officials from putting
| the law into force. The law was attacked
on the ground OF its unconstitutionality.
| IN his opinion Justice Harlan detaAsd
| the facts relating to the passage Of the act
! by the Nebraska Legislature in 1898 and
1 theD sketched briefly Its provisions say
! ing that among others OF its provisions
! was one to fix reasonable maximum freight
! rates on the railroads of the State. and to
| classify freights. He then took up in or
| Ger the points at Issue between the state
| and the railroad company, dealing III st
/ With the question of the propriety Of con
! sdering the case as one more of rates
! than Of law. Ii was contended that tho
railroads had an adequate remedy at law
| before the State and supreme court aud
that therefore the United States circuit
| court sitting In equity was without juris
dietion. On this point he said:
"We can not accept this view oiS the
equity jurisdiction OF the circuit courts Of
the United States The adequacy or mad
eqLacy of remedy at law for the protec-
tion of the rights OF one entitled upon any
ground 10 invoke the powers of Federal
court is not TO be conclusivey determined
by the statutes OF the particular State in
which the suit may be brought. One who
is entitled to sue in the Federal court
may invoke its jurisdiction in equity when
the established principles and rules of
equity permit such, and can not be de-
ufived of that right by reason OF his 1eins
allowed to sue at law In State court on
the cause of action. Transactions along
the line of any one of these railroads, out
of which causes of action might rise un-
der the statute, are so numerous and va
lied that the interference Of equity could
well be Justified on the ground that a gen
eral decree according 10 The practice OF
tho Hills would avoid a multiplicity of
suite and rive !, remedy more certain and
efficaciouS than could be given in any
preceding instituted against the company
IN a court of law, for court of law could
oply deal with each separate transaction
'a,,n,;a,,
,rno cor,a,tio, that the State was the
third Marty and that thc Fed raj courts
Ia ~ ,o,,a co,,nf1anre NJ n urder The
eleventh amendment TO the constitution
W. 80. i,,a i',rjy,,ction h,c,use
re',era, ,ou. 80 o,y,tnanshin ~. ,iisnage
no'n VI ~ 49,, ai.n on 'ni.ro,,nt NJ fi,4
eaot - "a, tho at ,s controrv to Inc Fed
~, .tt,,tian i, ,.os ,,so oontentea
~. eIa. ~ o,,,a no, ha n,ado a,nIicable
'nu, 'ne aSt nouia no' 80 I,aoo,e II n,,s
70 .l's oiiioi, aoii's aor,ora,ion bad
q reuerai thaI w anu ~ ~ -, e.; ~,
reserved 10 cohsless lpe iIsnV ~ ia -
rates OF thlS iiHe ~ ''i.n -, ss
put lhe eoui, 'oon Wy i,sni, az nc
congress Iin not "Na ai, n,Nh ~
pliN'iese , t,io seas ba,,n Re riyht m n,
Union faeHic passes nav wv s'i " 80
rates. Justice marian saiu oh .p'S i''i,'
Until congress, IN tue eNetpise ol tnp
power specifically reservoir. Dy tme elsn,
eenth section .he aet VI "a 10 ~
power under genera, iesoi sa.'9' MAJ III
nuHh0i'' "''
the act, and prescrlpes rates 10 W ciia' esu
by the railroad company, 1t rests WIN tne
states through which the roaa b passes 20
fix the rates i9r iransporaas,JH n ,r,es
and ending with their respective Aihits'
Justice Harlan then took up tne eonsu-
fourteenth amendment he salu,
provided that no sta,e snai, nepIlse any -
person OF properly Wlthout uu" p iors ,,s y,
law. nor deny 10 any person Wtnln !sS
Jurisdiction the equai pro'ec''oh VI VIZ
laws. ,,,,,,,t,.
That corporations are persons mNn,n
the meaning OF WIS ,n darriy.tion n,
settled. What amounts TO deprlNalon~M
property without que ploessS u am "
denial OF the e1uai pro.ec.inn VI ny IN.
IS often difficuit 10 ustarnipe' ,n
where the dussllom, nsrror,,ion ~" and he
erty of quasi pupile ,',.t.,ad ~ nuh.
extent to whicn ~ ny " =" .s,,,n., no
lie control Dut mn e sa,di i,.a, rrbila :,
Chief Justice Walte, haa s" ~, 80, ~, rail"
@, "a L. "