The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-08
Decision by the United states SUI
preme Court That Is of Great Inn
pOrtance to Western Railways.
OPINION BY JUSTICE HARLAN
WHO AFFIRMs THE RULING OF CIR
CUT COURT OF APPEALs,
Holding that the Act Is Invalid Be-
erty without Due Process of Law.


WASHINGTON, March 1.-THE Supreme
Court to-day rendered opinion in the
Nebraska maximum freight rate case. The
opinion was handed down by Justice Har-
Ian. He held the Nebraska law to be con-
trary to the fourteenth amendment, in that
1t authorized the taking Of property without
due process of law and was therefore in
valid. The decision affirmed the opinion of
the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth
circuit, and was favorable to the railroads
The case was instituted to test the valid
fly Of a law passed by the Nebraska Legis-
lature in 1893, prescribing the maximum
rates for the transportation of freight by
railroads within the State. The act applies
specifically to freight whose transit begins
and ends in the State, and there w;s no eff
fort in its enactment to control Interstate
freight. 1t affected all the railroads in the
State, and the railroad companies insti-
tuted the proceedings which were termi-
mated by to-day's opinion by filing a bill in
the Nebraska Circuit Court soon after the
law was enacted. The object of the bill was
to secure an order restraining the State
officials from putting the law into force.
The law was attacked on the ground of its
constitutionality 1t was charged that in
asmuch the act applied only to State
freights it was chargeable with diserimi-
nation against them, and therefore antago-
nistic to the spirit of the fourteenth amend
ment to the Constitution. They contended
that the maximum rate fixed was unreason-
able and ruinous to the roads. 1t was also
asserted that the act interfered with inter-
state commerce. The State met these al
legations with arguments in support of the
validity of the law and also with the 'coun-
the federal courts could not properly take
jurisdiction. The decision in the Circuit
Court was delivered by Justice Brewer, of
the Supreme Court, who sustained the con-
tention of the railroad companies and held
against the validity of the law. His opinion
was based largely upon the charge of urs-
reasonableness. He made a computation
showing that the reduction effected in
freight rates amounted on an average to
2915 per cent, which he held was too great
change. The case has been twice argued
in the Supreme Court, Hon. w. J. Bryan
appearing as one of the counsel for the
State at the last hearing. Much interest
has been manifested in the decision ever
since the case was docketed, because of the
prominent influence a result favorable to
the law would have upon legislation in
other States.
In his opinion Justice Harlan first de-
the act by the Nebraska Legislature in
1898, and then sketched briefly it's provi-
sions,' saying that among others of its pro-
visions was one to fix reasonable maxi
mum freight rates on the railroads of the
State and to classify freights. He then
took up in order the points at issue be-
tween the State and the railroad compa-
MES dealing first with the question of the
propriety OF considering the case as one of
equity rather than of law. 1t was con-
tended in the argument that the railroads
had an adequate remedy at lar before the
n and fhlf
fore the United States Circuit Court sitting
IN equity was without jurisdiction. On this
of the equity Jurisdiction of the Circuit
Courts of the United States. The adequacy
or inadequacy of remedy at law for the
protection OF the rights OF one entitled upon
any ground to invoke the powers of Fed
eral Court is not to be conclusively de-
termined by the statutes of the particular
State in which the suit may be brought.
One who is entitled to sue in the Federal
Circuit Court may invoke its jurisdiction
in equity whenever the established princi-
pies and rules of equity permit such suit
in that court, and he cannot be deprived
of that right fby reason of his being al
lowed to sue at law in State court on
the same cause of action. The transactions
along the line of any one of these rail-
roads, out of which causes of action might
arise under the statute are so numerous
and varied that the interference of equity
could well be justified upon the ground that
q general decree. according To the prayer
of the bills. would avoid a multiplicity of
suits, and give remedy more certain and
ceeding instituted against the company in
a court of law; for a court of law could
only deal with each separate transaction
involving the rates to be charged for trans
portation."
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 eleventh amendment to the
Constitution was overruled, the court say
ing that the federal courts had jurisdiction
because both of the diverse citizenship or
alienage of the parties and also on account
attacked as contrary to the provis-
ions of the federal Constitution. 1t was also
contended that the act could not he made
applicable to the Union Pacific, Railroad
because it has a federal charter ana the
act creating the corporation had reserved
this line in certain contingencies, but the
court took the position that as Congress
had 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 the power speci-
cally reserved by the eighteenth section of
the act of 1862 or it's power under the gen.
eral reservation made of authority to add
to, alter, amend or repeal that act, pre-
scribes rates to be charged by the railroad
company, it remains with the States
through which the road passes to fix rates
for transportation beginning and ending
within their respective limits"
Justice Harlan then took up the consttu-
tional questions involved by the four
teenth amendment" he said, lit is provided
that no State shall deprive any person of
property witho0t due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws" That
corporations are persons within the mean
ing of this amendment is now settled What
amounts TO deprivation of property without
due process of law, or a denial of the
equal protection of the laws, is often diff