The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-08
NEBRASKA LAW INVALID
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE
MAXIMUM RATE CASE
Provisions of the Act Held to he
In Violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution
Hates Fixed by Legislatures
Subject to Review in Equity.

WASHINGTON. March THE su-
preme court today rendered an opinion
IN the Nebraska maximum freight rate
case. The opinion was handed down
by Justice Harlan.
Justice Harlans opinion held the Ne
braska law to be contrary to the four
teenth amendment. in that it authoriz-
ed the taking of property without due
process of law, and was therefore in
valid. Hence the railroads won.
Justice Harlan's opinion affirmed the
opinion of the circuit court of appeals
for the Eighth circuit, which was
against the maximum freight rate law
Ind favorable to the railroads.
In his opinion Justice Harlan first de-
hailed the facts relating to the passage
Of the act by the Nebraska legislature
In 1893 and then sketched briefly its
provisions. 1t was contended in the
argument that the railroads had an
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:
We cannot accept this view of the equity
jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the
United States. The adequacy or inade-
quacy Of a remedy at law for the, protection
of the rights of any one, entitled upon any
ground to invoke the powers of a federal
court. is not to be conclusively determined
by the statutes OF the particular state in
which suit may be brought
One who is entitled to in the federal
court may invoke its jurisdiction in equity
whenever the established principles and
rules of equity permit such a suit in that
court; and he cannot be deprived of that
right by reason of his being allowed to
sue at law in state court on the Same
cause of action.
The transactions along the line of any
one of these railways, out of which causes
OF action might arise under the statute
are SO numerous and varied that the in
srference of equity could we'll be justi-
hed upon the ground that general de-
cree, according to the prayer of the bills
would avoid multiplicity of suits and
give remedy more certain and efficacious
than could be given in any proceeding in
stitu;ed against the company in a court
OF law; Tor court of law could only deal
with each separate transaction involving
lne rates TO be charged for transportation
Question of Jurisdiction.
The contention that the state was the
real party in interest and therefore the
federal courts could not take cogniza noe
pf 1t under the eleventh amendment to
The constitution, was overruled the
court saying that the federal courts had
jurisdiction both because of the diverse
eltlZenship or alienage of the parties
ana also on account of the fact that the
hct IS attacked as contrary to the pro-
visions of the federal constitution.
1t was also contended that the act
eould not be made applicable to the
union Pacific railroad because 1t has a
federal charter and the act creating the
corporation had reserved to congress
The right to fix the rates on this line
IN certain contingencies, but the court
took the position that as congress had
not awaited itself of this privilege the
nates through which the Union Pacific
passes have the right to fix rates.
justice Harlan said on this point:
Until congress, in the exercise either