, 1873-03-10
Common Carriers nnl the Common
LE1Ee

Common Carriers nnl the Common
LEW.
From The Springfield my Register. -.
Bouyier defines common carrier to be :" cue
who undertakes for hire to transport goods from
one place to another" Carriers may bc either
ndividuals or corporations, and tho lay govern
Ing them is substantially tho same. Railroads
are common c.rriers, and, as such, are subject
to al laws applicable to common carriers. The
recent decision OF the Supreme Court In tho
Chicago T. Alton RAILROAD case is to the effect
that tie railroads OF this State are common CIR
riers, and are subject to the common law re-
lating thereto.
This common law, that receives it'd binding
force from immemoriaf usage and universal re-
ception," contains this wholesome provision
in reference to common carriers, namely, that
they may charge for Transporting goods from
one place to another only reasonable compen-
antion; and further, that they shall not make
unjust determinations. But tho railroads have
contended that IN their charters, which are
claimed to bc inviolab1e contracts, the right to
fix rates for the transportation Of freights and
passengers has been given to them, and that
they may charge such rates and make such dis
criuiinations MS they may see tit.
The Supreme Court Of the State in itH regent
decision has harmonized the Common Law rule
haa decided that this unW1itten law was in force
when the charters we're granted, and that, while
the railroad corporations were authorized to fx
and determine their own rates, yet they we're
tacitlY bound to charge only such rates as were
just and reasonable, and we're prohibited from
il On important triumph to the people. All they
require and demand Of the railroads is that they
charge reasonable rites.
The power, then, is clearly in the hands OF the
people, through the Legislature and tho Courts,
to compel railroads to charge only reasonable
rates for the transportation Of freight and pas
sengors. This disposes Of the ya1ed question Of
"vested rights" The only "vestod rights"
theu that the railroads. havc, is tho right to de-
n,and and receive reasonable compensation for
their services. There is no license to practice
abuses and extortions, and make unjust discrim-
inations. This is tue sum and substance OF their
''contract" with the people. This iB their
"vestcd rights"
There is contract, then, between the rail-
roads nnI tho people. In consideration Of this
power Of ointment domain, in procuring their
right Of way, they have agreed to carry the peo-
pie and their products and merchandise at rea-
sonab1e prices. Ifthey have violated this con-
tract it can DO enforced The Legislature can
contract, and to this end may, If necessary, de-
clare the franchise forfeited, and proceed
against them to Judgment OF custer and hnal e1-
ecution. What greater remedy could the people
ask Their powers OF protection are ample and
complete.
But can this contract be enforced? Why not ?
ALL other contracts can be- and arc enforced, and
there is no reason why this msy not be Let
the General Assembly provide simple and eftec-
tive means Of determining schedule OF reason~
able rates Of freight and passenger tariffs on tho
different railroads in this State, through the in
terposition of courts and juries, and when such
rates have been ascertaiued, let the
courts be empowered to enforce obedience there
to- This is the solution OF the railroad problem.
With this yanishes the bugbear Of % vested
rights" and the great moneyed corporations of
the State become subject to tue laws governing
common carriers, and can only receive reason-
able and just compensation for their sorvicea.
THIS ia all the people esk.