The U.S. Supreme Court case West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. People of the State of Illinois Ex Rel. City of Chicago in 1905 revolved around a dispute between the city and a railroad company over who should bear the cost for paving streets where tracks were laid. The city had passed an ordinance requiring street railway companies to pave and maintain streets between their tracks, which was contested by the West Chicago Street Railroad Company as being unconstitutional under both state and federal law on grounds that it violated due process rights by imposing undue financial burden without proper compensation or benefit received in return. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was ruled that such ordinances did not violate constitutional provisions regarding due process or equal protection laws because they fell within reasonable exercise of police power held by municipalities to regulate public utilities operating within their jurisdiction for welfare purposes like maintaining good roads etc., even if this meant imposing certain costs on these entities; thus upholding lower court's decision favoring City Of Chicago.

In the dissenting opinion for West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. People of the State of Illinois Ex Rel. City of Chicago, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles governing public service corporations and their relations to the state or municipality granting them privileges. He contended that it was not within a corporation's power to dictate terms under which its franchises could be altered or amended by legislative authority, nor should they have an absolute right to operate indefinitely without any changes in conditions as deemed necessary by public interest. The justice further stated that such interpretation would place these corporations beyond control except upon payment for every change made in their interests, regardless if it is beneficial or detrimental to public welfare - this he believed contradicted previous rulings where courts upheld legislative powers over corporate charters granted with reserved rights of amendment and repeal.