Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1872-05-15
Railroad Tarifls---Important Judicial
Decision.
From the Winona Republican.

Railroad Tarifls---ImpOrtant Judicial
Decision.
From the winona Republican.
Soon after the passage of the law of
1871, enacted for the purpose of regu-
lating the rates of transportation by
railroad within this state, a suit was
commenced by J. d. Blake and others,
of Rochester, against the Winona and
st. Peter Railroad Company, with a
view of testing the validity of the law
referred to- The case, we believe. was
never brought to trial in open Court,
but was submitted, upon questions of
law only, to Judge Waterman. since
that gentleman's accession to the bench,
and by him decision has Just been
rendered, the leading points
Of which are contained in
the syllabus printed herewith Tt will
be seen that Judge Waterman unequiv-
ocally denies the power of the legisla-
ture to interfere in the premises. He
argues that the making and accepting
of charter of incorporation of the
nature OF that granted by the state to
the railroad companies constitutes a
contract between the state on the one
hand and the corporators on the other,
which contract, IN the absence of all
provisions IL the acts of incorporation
prescribing the rates of TRANSPORTATION,
or authorizing such rates to be deter
mined specifically on the part of tne
state, cannot be ViOl0ted bV ana Zeois.
lathe attempt IN that direction
7OaO or hereafter. The remedy for
any grievances exists not in the Legis-
latures-which represents one of the
parties to the original contract-but in
the courts of laws and equity, to which
the party claiming to be agprieved
must look for redress. The railroad
companies are required, by the provis-
ions OF their charters, to carry freights
at reasonable rates" but it is the
province of the courts and not of the
Legislature to determine what rates are
reasonable or otherwise. Upon this
point turns the whole controversy be-
tween the people and the rail
roads, as 1T exists not alone in
Minnesota but in several of the
States adjoining. The question as 1t
has been presented is one of constitn-
tlonal law and not one of expediencv.
Judge Waterman's decision, being the
only one that has yet been rendered
touching what may be termed the mar
row of the case, is therefore one of very
great Importance, and it will unques-
tlonably be scanned with much eager
ness IN all parts of the country where
discussion on the point at issue has
arisen. The position taken by him, is
one, we are strongly inclined to believe,
thatcannot be successfully controverted.
The following comprises the sub.
stance Of the decision referred to:
FSrstThat, though no cypress au-
| thority to do so is found in the several
Acts under which this Corporation is
! organized and doing business, yet, by
necessary implication, those Acts do
give the Company the implied power
of transporting freight and passengers
and taking some charge by way of COM
pensatiOn for the service.
SecOnd-That this right, though an
implied one only, is one of the essen
tlal franchises, in fact the essential one
of the corporation, and became
"vested" in the company upon it's ac-
ceptance of the charter and is as
Th5rd-That the making and accept
ance of charter of incorporation of
the nature of the one in question con-
st1tutes a contract between the State on
the one hand and the corporators on
the other.
FOUTth.-That in the absence of any
provision in the acts of incorporation
prescribing the amount of charges to
be made for the carriage of freight and
passengers upon defendants road. the
law, IN this as in other similar cases.
fixes the amount at reasonable rates. y
-hJth.-That, unless the right to do
so Was embraced in and constituted
part OF the contyact-as it was not in
this cdse-neither party can, to the
detrlment of the other, without his
consent, arbitrarily, substantially
change any of it's material provisions,
and hence the state could not change
the rates of compensation the company
was entitled to establish, without its
consent. But i'll this, as in every case
involving a controversy in regard to
private rights and public duty, should
airy question arise as to whether the
changes were or were not reasonable -
the question, like all others of like
character, must be determined by the
proper courts of law and equity.
SaGth.-That consequently the act of
the Legislature OF 1871, regulating
freight and passenger tariffs on all the
railroads OF this State, in so far as it
aims to be retroactive and applicable to
this corporation, formed at an earle
date. and attpnOtS to intarforo NTH =,
vested right OF the company without its
consent, cannot be binding upon it and
is null and void as an infringement
upon its constitutional rights.
tSeUenth.-Incidentall that corpo-
rations do not hold their property and
franchises by any higher tenure than
individuals do theirs, but by precisely
the same. And all property in the state,
whether held by corporations or indi-
Ylduals, IS held subject to the exercise
OF the supreme right on the part of the
state of eminent domain: and this right
can be exercised by the state, directly,
through It's own agents, or, indi-
rectly, through public or private corpo.
ratlons, or even individuals, in some
cases, provided the public use, conven-
fence or necessity demands it. And,
under the constitutional exercise of this
right, all the private rights of property
and franchises of corportions as well as
OF individuals can be swept away and
appropriated to such public use anon
the S5n110Ie condition of 2nakin0 due
compensation therefor.