The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1908-01-23
TWC-CENT LAW VOID.
Supreme Court iffirms Decision
of Philadelphia Court.
THREE JUSTICES DISSENT
Majority Opinion Declares the Law
Does Injustice to Railroads - Are
Entitled to Fair Proft-No Appeal
From the Decision.

From the Decision.
Philadelphia. Jan. 21. - The su-
preme court by a majority opinion.
affirmed the finding OF Judges Will
son and Audenreid. declaring the two
cent passenger rate unconstitutional.
An appeal had been taken from this
decision Of the judges OF the common
pleas court. which was the finding in
a test suit attacking the law institut-
ed bv the Pennsylvania railroad.
The decision in the appeal was
made known after an expectant wait
OF weeks on the part OF the great rail.
road corporations in particular and
the public in general.
Chief Justice Mitchell handed
down the opinion, which was concur
red in by Justice Fell. Brown and
Elkin. Justices Mestrezat Stewart
and Potter each fled a dissenting
opinion.
The majority opinion declares that
the real question In the case is
whether the rate law transgressed
the provisions of the constitution that
the legislative power to alter charters
shall be exercised only in such man.
ner that no injustice shall be done 10
the corporators.
In conclusion the decision says:
The corporation is entitled 20 mako
a fair profit on every branch OF its
business subject TO the Limitation that
its corporate duties must be per.
formed, even though at a loss. What
Is fair profit is highly complicated
and difficult question.
The court below avalled them.
selves OF all the best evidence that
was offered or shown TO be attainable.
considered II with exemplary patience
and care. and their conclusion that
the enforcement OF their act of 1907
against the complainant would do in
Justice to the corporators is beyond
Just criticism"
In his dissenting opinion Justice
Mestrezat thinks the lower court in
error in finding that the two-cent rate
is unreasonable because the average
passenger fare now collected is 1907
cents per mile.
1T is clear" he says. that under
the evidence in the case. considering
only the revenue from the passenger
traffic. that the rate as fixed by the
act OF 1907 is not unreasonable. much
less confscatory."
Justice Mestrezat further declares
there can be no injustice result TO
the corporation from making II sub
tect to the entire constitution. as the
language Of its acceptance declares It
Is" He also adds:
1T will be observed that the legis-
lature can alter, annul or revoke the
charter only when II is done in such
manner that no injustice shall be done
TO the corporators.' This gives ample
protection to the corporation and its
stockholders while at the same time
II makes the constitution OF the com
monwealth still the supreme law Of
the land. II leaves the property and
the franchises OF the corporation fully
protected and still continues sover-
eighty in the state. and in the state
is where 1t belongs"
In dissenting Justice Potter does
not agree with the lower court that
the act would prevent the railroad
company from earning a fair return
on the capital invested. He holds
that the effect of the act on the earn
ings of the whole system within the
state. and not alone the earnings on
passenger traffic. should have been
considered.
Attorney-General NJ. Hampton Todd
said:
Il had hopes that the courts would
sustain the legislature In regulating
the large public carving corporations
but l see they have not done so. and
l am sorry. doubt the right OF the
city to appeal. although ! am not yet
certain upon this point. Under the
constitution. should the privilege in
volved have been lost to the railroad
company. II would have had the right
to appeal But the privilege having
been secured to the railroad company
by both lower and supreme court. II
would seem that there is no appeal
from the decision by the city"