*1 TERM, 1882. Syllabus. the final- authorized to make are nor they anywhere duty, special assessment. (cid:127) for the of their views was merely The suggestion report District commissioners. of the action these act, other hand, language On the express make the assessment on to are directed latter commissioners if do not which, to and on they pay, pay, which parties an becomes be issued which interest-bearing shall certificate their lien oh property. is, making necessary
Another source complaint it became the new necessary sup- pavement, excavations cost by underpinning, the track of company port commissioners; This and was paving $1,052.12, paid n It the railroad for the benefit of company. work was wholly used or while track caving falling prevent authorities and the work, city might the progress during But as this care of itself. might to take left have company led to wisely the work or they pro- have litigation, delayed to us a- worked. It seems charge tected while proper they benefited, alone were as alone, they against made it track their -necessary. is no error record,
There District decree Court Supreme affirmed. v. ILLINOIS. RUGGLES OF ILLINOIS. THE STATE THE SUPREME COURT OF TO IN ERROR May Decided 7th, Railroads —Statutes. Law —Contracts—Illinois Constitutional pro- company in Illinois а railroad to the charter of made amendment was An make, ordain and shall have viding that “the said expedi- deemed as by-laws, rules all such establish carry into effect purposes necessary to fulfil ent affairs, securing the ordering, regulating and and for the well of this re- Provided, not same be business, That the : and interest of States, repugnant or United pugnant the Constitútion and laws RUGGLES v.
Statement Facts. act; such rates shall have to establish directors board same, property upon conveyance of toll for the determine, levy and to and collect from time to time shall ” Held, company: That inasmuch as the the said the same for the use of *2 by-laws, through and the to be exercised rates was power to establish repugnant to such as should not be make was restricted power to State, the amendment did not re- things), to the laws of the (among other of contained upon the amount rates oompany from restrictions lease special , in and statutes of the State. governmental control are never to be immunity legitimate] from of Grants is free exemption clearly'established an is presumed; unless (cid:127) general jurisdiction, as the interests subjects act on all within its to may require. language necessary a statute it ambiguity an in the of there is Whеn enactment; or, if it be a objects of the in its inquire to into the it; asking but when the purposes of the beneficiaries private clear, and leads to no absurd con- language interpretation, and needs no is - clusion, this will not be done. ^ in Illinois before a of the justice peace against Complaint came Lewis. Lewis for assault and one battery upon Buggies and a on board train on the Quincy Burlington Chicago, conductor, tendered Railroad a ticket. He without Buggies, refused to re- a mile. fare at the rate of three cents Buggies rate of the established cede it and demanded the company, this, which more. Lewis not attempted was paying Buggies him to remove from violence, but without station, at the next con- assault. was was the the train. This Buggies alleged until it reached victed. The case was Supreme appealed affirmed. The was Court of the when judgment certificate on a of with the error, case came writ following up of the of Illinois -: of the chief Court justice Supreme “ This in the determination of this case there was certifies that of clause of that the construction drawn necessarily a State of the Statés the Constitution United which prohibits of plaintiff laws contracts. obligation impairing passing in the act that he clаimed justified error appellant of the charters in the court he below prosecuted by which he being Railroad Company, Burlington the Chicago, Quincy char- said and that the railroad of a conductor on said company, fix the ters conceded said company TERM, Opinion of the Court. over and road, said property upon persons transportation charters constituted contract that said substantially guaran- ; the Constitution of the States United teed protected said claim and decided I was disallowed adversely certify Court, the said the ground the said appellant, by Supreme upon Illinois, statute of thе virtue State provisions of the charters of the said granting subsequently passed a less rate' Burlington Company,' Chicago, , said road fare for transportation persons property upon State than the rate fixed had been established by authority under the and that said statute authority to the rates of controlled the charter regard road, said and that over to fix the said charters to said the right granting its road over rates for the transportation constitute a contract the Constitution did not protected by alteration and modification States, but was by. United Illinois, certified, all of duly the legislature hereby *3 said may presеnt end that the said appellant the. States for Court United adjudication.”
the Supreme and Mr. Bartlett for the Mr. Wirt Dexter Sidney plaintiff error. and for the
Mr. James K. Edsall Mr. James McCartney in error. defendants of the court. Justice Waite delivered Chief opinion
Mr. need take of. case, In the view we only question be considered whether charter of the Central is, Military the Illinois Tract Railroad one of corporations now consolidation, which, repre- agreements through Com-, and sented Burlington, Chicago, on face to to the pany, grant purports con- to fix the and fare freight charged free all railroad, on its veyаnce property no such find that control on we If, examination, State. be to decide intended, will grant unnecessary one to bind has the succeeding legislatures a contract to that effect.
RUGGLES v. ILLINOIS. of the Court.
Opinion of the charter on to relied establish such a be stated as .follows: grant the 5th of On November, an passed by “ for a assembly Illinois
general general system provide of railroad That act contained the incorporations.” following provisions: 12.- directors of such shall make have'power § for the stock, management disposition property,
and business affairs of such not inconsistent with the company, of this State, laws officers, the duties of artificers, prescribing and servants that of all employed, appointment officers for on all the business within the carrying object of such purposes company. shall Every possess general powers
Ҥ and be liabilities and subject restrictions expressed in the that is to special powers : following, say
[*] “ 8. To take, [*] transport, carry, [*] [*] convey persons [*] [*] property [*] on their railroad, steam, the force and by. animals, or mechanical any powers, combination of by any them, and re- ceive tolls or therefor. compensation
v 10. To “ regulate [*] the time and manner in [*] [*] which passengers [*] [*] shall be transported, tolls and compensation therefor ; but such paid any passenger his shall not ordinary baggage mile, exceed three cents a unless alteration, act of the by special and shall be legislature, as hereinafter provided.
v “§ 32. The legislature [*] v may, when ^4.* any such railroad shall be *' [*] *4 use, for time, time to opened toll, alter or reduce of the rates shall; fare, or other freight, ; such road profits upon but the same not, of without the consent the be so reduced as to- corporation, cent, with said than produce profits less fifteen annum on- per per the in ; nor, capital unless on an examination of the actually paid amounts and received to be made of expended, by Secretary State, he ascertain that thе net income com- shall divided
vol. cviii—34 TERM, 1882. of the Court.
Opinion from all sources for the then last pany year shall past have ex- cent, an annual ceeded income of fifteen per of capital in.” corporation actually paid 15th On. the another act February, passed the Central Tract Railroad incorporate Military Company, a railroad between certain purpose building using Section of that act is as designated points. follows: said created company hereby incorporated § “ ‘ an under act entitled An purpose organizing Act to provide for a general system railroad in force inсorporations,’ Novem- 5th, 1849, ber and in all shall things governed by provisions thereof, and shall be entitled to have and exercise the powers and be to the liabilities therein privileges enumerated: Provided, That the attach foregoing corporation themselves and form of the Northern Cross part Railroad such manner or on such terms as said shall companies agree.” “ On the 19th of June, another act to amend passed ‘ an act entitled An Act to the Central Tract. incorporate Military are the of this Company.’” following parts act on in our amending which, case :' opinion, depends 5. All the of said corрorate shall be powers vested § in and exercised directors, board and such officers and * * * * as shall agents they appoint. “ 6. The said shall make, have ordain, and § all such establish. rules and as by-laws, deemed expedient to fulfil necessary purposes carry of this for the well ordering, into effect affairs, regulating, business, and interest securing Provided, : That the same be not Con- repugnant stitution and laws of the United-States or of this or re- to this act. The pugnaiit board of directors shall have establish such rates of toll for conveyance persons prop- same, erty upon shall from time to time by- determine, laws and to collect the same use levy fbi\the the said The- company. arid property, track, width all other matters and things respect-
RUGGLES v. ILLINOIS. 531
Opinion of the Court. road, shall use of said be in such conformity rules ing the said board of directors shall from time to time determine.”
' It is on contended part this amend- company clause 10 section 21 as well as repeals section 32 of the ing railroad far as law, so are general to the Cen- applicable tral Tract and that under Military Company, section- 6 of the act the directors have amending absolute control of rates of fare and free of interference. freight "Wedeem it to determine the unnecessary because on full question repeal, consideration we are satisfied that 6 section does not have the effect that is claimed it. for
Grants of immunity control legitimate governmental are never to be On the presumed. contrary, presumptions all the other and unless an is way, exemption clearly established the is free act on all within subjects its as the jurisdiction interests seem to re As was Chief Justice quire. Taney, said speaking court, River 420, Charles v. Warren 11 Pet. Bridge Bridge, “ It assumed can never be that the 547; intended government to diminish its end it which was accomplishing created.” This is an elemеntary principle.
In & Railroad v. Chicago, Burlington Company Iowa, U. S. 155 v. & ; Peik Chicago Railway Northwestern 164; 94 U. S. Winona & St. Peter v. U. S. Blake, 94 was determined that Company State limit the railroad amount charges by companies for fares and unless restrained some contract in the freights, charter.” The to reversal rests present judgment on the whether has question any restraining contract, and that on the effect to be the amend given depends section 6. ing charter was authorized to trans original and to receive
port passengers therefor. if This, there had been more, would, under nothing the rule stated Munn v. 94 U. S. and the Illinois, several railroаd cases decided the same at time, require TERM,
Opinion of the Court. at and leave rates, reasonable carry fix the maximum of what would reasonable. at liberty aside the limitations of the old that, So laying has the section relied on here amending *6 from 'the State this effect away power legislative taking regulation. section that the shall have provides amending and rules, to and establish all such make, ordain, by-laws, power to as be deemed and fulfil necessary expedient into the this the effect purposes carry affairs, the busi for the well securing ordering, regulating, That the Provided, same be ness interest the cоmpany: States, the of the United Constitution laws not to repugnant ” all of this or to act. section State, or By repugnant in and of the vested could be exer the were powers the under this cised directors. no Clearly by authority by-law directors can established that does not to conform by this, the laws of the the laws force were in charter the amended or came when into granted operation afterwards. The for of its power regulation in own affairs was thus terms express subjected legisla control of the State. The tive was a continu corporate power one and intended for the of the affairs of the com ing ordering as circumstances from time to time pany might require. reserved control was also State its by nature, continuing intended for the of the when manifestly protection in the ever of the judgment legislative department gov ernment should arise. necessity Then follows the on which the claim of a special provision contract is It is as follows: predicated.
“ The board'of directors shall have to establish such rates power for of toll conveyance same persons property upon shall time to time by their by-laws determine, and and collect the same for the use of the levy company.” This is the form which and collect power charge carriage v.
RUGGLES 533' of tlie Opinion, Court. charter. The rates must amended be fixed
granted can be made that is at all and no by-law repugnant by-laws, The first to the laws of the paragraph section, State.. what is generally necessary proviso, prescribes fix and the second allows the of a directors to validity by-law, true It is that the first undoubtedly by by-laws. para- takes from to nor the inherent of a neither adds graph make of its affairs, by-laws regulation declara-, more than and that nothing proviso of the common law that all tion of must principle in conflict and not with the reasonable, laws State. fact that such a would im- But the have been very provision of its adds to the significance incorporation plied, express and manifests terms into the a determination not as to the of the State to use its leave room for doubt leg- if of the affairs islative necessary regulation the enactment of at lekst laws corporation, ap- of a to all like'character, *7 plicable corporations engaged n a like business. There is in the remotest .nothing even indicates that a rates is to be of a differ- by-law degree fixing character from those the other business ent regulating in a sectiоn When, therefore, charter which company. that declares no shall be made that inis con- by-law expressly the laws of we find flict with that the State, charge to be levied and collected for the conveyance persons are to be is conclusion irre- by by-laws, regulated can be sistible collected as are allowed only charges that, the laws of the State. This in the absence of implies on the direct the directors over subject, legislation the rates is the common-law subject only limitation' the absence of a reasonableness, statute, other appro- indication will, common law forms priate of the laws of the State to which the part corporate by-laws since, must But conform. absence of some restraining establish a the State maximum of rates contract, may railroad companies charged by that when a maximum follows is so estab- property, fixed the directors
lished the rates must conform to its OCTOBER TERM, 1882.
Opinion oi the Court. otherwise the requirements, will be by-laws to the repugnant laws.
It is however, this cannot argued, be the meaning if the amending because, had, under its old absolute rates, fixing to a subject only limit of three cents a mile on and the State had passengers, no to interfere, the annual except keep down' to profits cent, fifteen annum on the per per no paid-up one can capital, believe it would have surrendered such a and taken in privilege lieu another so unfavorable as It is this. true, as undoubtedly was claimed in and has been argument, often said from the that amendments bench, to the charters of corporations at made the solicitation of usually themselves, corporations who cause the bills to be to the prepared submitted legisla tures for enactment, if that, there is doubt as to the con struction of what is this fact enacted, be resorted to in aid But Yattel’s first maxim interpretation. of inter is that “it is not allowable to what pretation has no interpret need of and he When a continues: deed is interpretation,” w;ordedin clear and terms—when its is evident precise meaning and leads to no absurd conclusion—there can be no reason for to admit the which such deed refusing meaning naturally pre sents. T£> elsewhere search of in order go to re conjectures, strict or it, extend but to elude it.” Yattel’s Law of Nations, 244. Here the words are themselves. The plain interpret directors establish such by-laws they please’ provided are not they laws, Constitution and’ repugnant their the rates of fare and may by As by-laws regulаte freight. their must conform to the laws of the so must rates; If the State had not the legislative power hire, carriers for the case would regulate charges *8 be different. But that settled, has been amended charter which this from the secured leg islature must be in construed of that established light power. therefore,
Without, to determine what undertaking rights to fares and under the were freights secured old pro- nor the other whether more was gained by v.
BUNGLES Harlan, Concurring <J. Opinion: acceptance than was lost new charter visions it enacted, as was six section
We thejudgment. affirm Mr. concurring. Harlan Justice U. S. court held that Illinois, In Munn v. in the Constitution States there Unitеd was nothing of Illinois from which the legislature fixing, by prevented the maximum of statute, in grain charges storage in at other that State, warehouses where places Chicago and in stored which bulk, different grain grain mixed owners is or in which the is stored such together, grain a manner that the lots or different cannot identity parcels be accurately preserved. that case is &
Immediately Chicago, Burlington following Railroad which in v. 94 U. S. Quincy Iowa, Company “ volved the of a statute of Iowa reason validity establishing able maximum rates of charges on the different
freights railroads of that passengers” State. case be observed that the Tоuching court conceded a railroad corporation might its protected by charter absolute control as to rates of- against fare but that the freight, there of the law was, of Iowa questioned its validity ^charter, to such as the from made-subject legislation legislature might, time to time, establish. “ are, They therefore,” court, said the corporations] [railroad in public engaged interest, employment affecting and, under the decision in Munn Illinois, v. legisla d control,
tive unless protecte charters. The Burlington River & Missouri Railroad char benefit of whose ter the & Chicago, now Burlington Company claims, was under the organized Iowa, general corporation law o to contract, reference its business, t same as private individuals, and to 'establish all and make rules deemed regulations expedient affairs, but her relation nevertheless, all ing subject, at times rules and fto time, as the general assembly Iowa might, time enact *9 TERM, 536 Harlan, Opinion: Concurring J. substance, chanter, in is, This to that provide. extent its. for it is late
it is as a contract now too to contend protected / is nota that the charter a contract within the mean- corporation of that clause in the Constitution of the United States ing which a State from law any prohibits passing impairing obligation a Whatever is is secured subject contract. granted only reservatiоns in limitations and laws or con- it.” stitutions govern which In Peik & Northwestern Railway v. Chicago sustained,
U. S. similar Wisconsin a statute was as within of its enact. The court said: legislature “In Chicago, Munn Illinois and & Burlington v. Iowa, decided' the State Company v. we limit may for railroad fares amount charges by companies contract, even their unless restrained some im freight, though come been as obli- security have pledged payment ” incurred the faith charter gations
It was said in case: also
“ When has been clothed interest, fix a legislature shall, law, limit to that which reason- able for its use. This limit binds the courts well as the people!” last it must not be language overlooked, quoted, was
used in reference to a charter imder railroad the Con- granted stitution of Wisconsin, which that all acts expressly provided for the creation of within the State corporations “may altered or time repealed at any after passage.”
In Winona & St. Peter Railroad v. 94 U. Blake, Compamy it 180, was S. as there that, was the charter decided nothing of the railroad of the State to company limiting for it was regulate charges freight competent- passengers, for on require carry equal reasonable as the terms; this, because, court inci ruled, dent to which occupation engaged, v.,
RUGGLES Harlan,
Concurring Opinion: J. carrier, it was created á colleсt reason- only was there able held as carriage. from the to, as con- adding nothing taking nothing grant *10 , the charter. tained original establish, cases others,
These 1. That among these,principles: of charter a railroad a the contract the within corporation is. of the of the contract clause federal Constitution. meaning That such be its charter corporation may protected by against e control in the matter rates for the absolute legislative carriag 3. That the when charter is passengers freight. granted to such as the to time subject time legislature may provide, authority it, alter or in either of such cases the has the repeal same over rates or tolls that it when the charter was had In4. the absence granted. the statutory regulations upon it is from the subject, of a rail necessarily implied occupation road it shall exact reasonable only compen sation for carriage.
How far these control the case I principles present proceed now to inquire. law of 1849 railroad authorized railroad general corpo-
rations created under it to tolls and regulate Compensation the to these passengers property, subject restrictions: That for a and his ordi- passenger exceed cents nary should not three unless .mile, by baggage act of the that the special further, legislature; legislature may, from time to or reduce rates of alter the time, toll, fare, freight, or other railroad, the same should profits upon provided not, without the consent of the so reduced as to corporation, cent, than fifteen less annum on produce per profits per said nor, on an in, unless capital examination of actually paid amounts received and to be made expended, Secretary (cid:127) 'he shall ascertain net income derived that. from аll sources for the then last ex- year passed cent, ceeded an annual income of fifteen per upon capital so in. actually paid
The act of 15th, 1851, February the Central incorporating Tract Military Railroad of the constituent cor- Company —one (cid:127) TERM, 1882. Harlan, J.
Concurring Opinion: consolidation, make Chicago, Burling- which, by porations benefit of and to the whose ton it is created for the latter entitled —declares charter law under the organizing purpose thereof, shall all shall things governed privileges and exercise be entitled to have powers enumerated.” therein pro- to thе liabilities be subject powers privi- of 1849, enumerating visions liabilities imposed upon, by, leges enjoyed became thus part thereunder, corporations organized ' Company. Tract Railroad charter of the Central Military solely this case turned If the determination of maximum charges the act of establishing con- any. all in Illinois, railroads deprived there would declared or law tract given by in the first for, be no affirming judgment; difficulty *11 to conductor the' in this tendered, case, amount Ruggles, place, as the entire he refused compensation and which accept all that was allowed the was Lewis, by be paid by passengеr, in and all that the the absence of the act of 1871, company, collect; the law of 1849 to was by special permitted further, no in that the there is evidence the record passenger the the act of will reduce as established profits by its which of the amount the below by aggregate which -the it realize, legist charter entitled to within But in behalf it. could restrict lature, reservation, by express act of the of is contended that the sixth.section appellant by absolute 1852, the invested with 19th, of June corporation of rates; its whole control, directors, subject through the removed section, that words, other the that legislature, cents mile restriction in the act of 1849 of three per and, and his impli- ordinary by necessary passenger baggage, the reduction to make even cation, pro- surrendered vided'for that statute. do 1852,1 act of In the construction of the view, as to
n notconcur. That the inconsistent, act is not upon absolutely statute of'<1849. They of subject rates, the'general favored, stand since not repeals by implication together, RUGGLES v. Opinion:
Concurring J. Harlan,. so construed if as, should he to make them both possible, The statute of 1849 the operative. gave the within a certain limit, tolls and general- power, regulating paid рassengers But it did not the mode property. prescribe particular by the should informed as to the rates established. I think the incline to that of the act of 1852 was to purpose as a condition declare, the directors to precedent that the tolls, collect rates should not be levy determined at the mere discretion company’ssuperintendent agents with the of ’-its business, charged management keeping but— the limits within law 1849—should be prescribed by fixed directors in the ‘It corporation. not be that the should intended presumed the act of 1852 to the restrictions general language abrogate in the act of and to аs to the Central surrender, Military Tract Railroad in the reserved power, law, of all railroad created keeping profits corporations cent, it, under was, one fifteen within per upon in. capital actually, paid I do not concur in so much of the
But court opinion as seems to rest that, the law of upon ground apart from 1849,the of tolls to be the Central charged by Military Tract Railroad was, under act of 1852, Company exclusively determination, and, in no case, of judicial cogni zance. The court holds that, testing the latter act—in entirely words, .other assuming sixth section act of 1852 all in superseded of rates—the not' judiciary inquire ’ *12 whether the rates established the than are less -by reasonable the of carriage that is, that the determination is conclu property; legislative sive. I concede that the sixth section of the act of' does not the of place within the absolute control of the so as to authorize it to company, collect tolls be-' levy what yond would afford remuneration for the services proper rendered; as- this, the as because, shown, law already implies, incident to its business, that the shall exact only TERM, Harlan,
Concurring Opinion: J. But the the sixth tolls. section legislature, reasonable of the directors collect 1852, of might levy the act agreed from time should, rates as to estab- time, reasonable they introduction into that section their lish by-laws. rates, to and in after connec- clause relating of the special to make the clause tion with power general conferring busi- affairs, rules and reference to the regulations, by-laws, with interest the not inconsistent the of ness company, entirely meaningless, laws unnecessary, to assure those who means into intended if not put collected, to be levied and road, as the tolls that, proposed the limit of be the directors within should established by reasonableness, uncontrolled discretion of and not left to the words, the In other putting legislature. has— contract with the State that aside the law of 1849—a and collect'reasonable directors, establish, it its levy, may, by I that no think, contract, as The court holds, tolls. erroneously, that, arises out of case, view of the any cannot its judiciary inquire consistently provisions, ' board of directors are or the rates established by fixed the rates reasonable. legisla- not Although low, cannot, ture shown ruinously judiciary bemay the court, to the decision protect according to it of establishing, levying, exercise granted tolls. reasonable сollecting, 1852 is I that if the act of am regarded opinion it constitutes as' the law either alone or superseding and the contract' between the State whereby company, control an from absolute latter exemption acquired secured, as rates, beyond from time time, its withdraw, directors,' the right, through rates of toll for to establish reasonableness, within the limit If so, of persons property. this. under contract that all controversies results rights involving in all the courts other cases contract, must be adjusted, de- law, and are not to the established principles according of one terminable or will upon, wholly deрendent by, one authority, The company, any acting by parties. *13 ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.R. CO. *. ILLINOIS. 541.
Counsel for Parties. has the to submit to the courts the act of the will prescribed by any subsequent give that reasonable in the State agreed, be exacted under might (cid:127) (cid:127) established its board of directors. The act of 1852 not, does I think, supersede law of 1849 rates. But since look alone we act of failed company (if has 1852) that show the rates fixed in the act of unreasonable, and since—if the section of the act of 1849 is still thirty-second in force—it does not that those rates would reduce the appear below the amount to company’s which, рrofits section, could be restricted they I concur in by subsequent legislation, affirming judgment. J. I concur in the in this case judgment on solely
Field, that no ground was made that rate proof prescribed by was unreasonable. Under decisions of previous taken, the court the rate presumptively reasonable.
I do not to Munn v. give any Illinois. weight My objec- tions to the- decision in that case were at the time it expressed and' rendered, have been strengthened by subsequent reflection. Besides, case does not relate to corporations or to common carriers.
Me. Justice did not sit this case. Blatcheoed ILLINOIS RAILROAD v. THE CENTRAL COMPANY
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. IN EEEOR TO THE SUPREME OP THE STATE OF COUET May 7th,
Decided Mr. John A. Jewett and.Mr. N. John Campbell plaintiff in error.
Mr. James Illinois, Mr. MeCartney, Attorney-General