, 1874-05-09

tho stase or from p1.ce within tho State 10 place
without tho state. than IL charged BY such company
for tho catrage Of passengers and tho transportation
Or property or freight for like distances pcr mile,
from places without tho State to rlacou within the
stao, Or from places within tho State through tho
State to other places without tho State, the person or
peraona paying such charges, olther fare freight
shall b. entitled to recover from such company 10
! charging anu receiving the a slim Of ten-fold
tAo amount Of tho money 40 paid to DO recovered In
IN action Of debt asaunpHk a. like amounts arc
| now recovered by law.
Bowers recovered In tho Court below, subject
to certain questions resorvod for tho Court Of
Errors and Appeals. That Court hold that my
act restricting any franchise vested In coipo-
ration by itB charter, and mrtclial to tho bone
aclal exercise Of tue grant, is IN impairfng of
+! tho obligation OF contract. within tho proh-
blsion OF tho Constitutions; that an act regulat-
Ing railway ohargos-no such power having boon
roserved in tho oharter-is void Of, and that
such an act Ia not within the police power OF tho
State. Judge Rodneld, perhaps tho highest
authority in tho country on railway Law,
finds fault with tho opinion OF Chancellor
Bates. Uo docs not think tho grounds on which
tho decision Is based tonhblo, eyon when tho
Constitution does not, Us 1t doea In Wisconsin,
reserve to tue Legislature the right to modify or
repeal tho charter uf a corporation. ue dooa
not grant that tho power to adjust It's own tariff
Of charges by its OWL officers, according to their
own views Of the noceeetios Of BUSINESS an,
without supervision, IL part Of Tho franchises
Of = railway corporation anywhere. He claims
that corporations, hko natural poreonB. ara eub-
tcot to remedial legislation and amonsble to
general laws.
Chancellor Batea relied In hIs opinion on tho
Dartmouth College caso. Mr. Redtlold thinks
be misapplies the law Of that case. and says that
"lt tho doctrine Of tho Dartmouth College case
reached 90 far into tho domain Of State logiela-
tion aa to exempt corporations from its control
except when favorable to their wtshes It never
ought to havo been made, and tho sooner It Ia
reversed tho bottor." He thinks, however, that
thoto is no fairness In giving that case any such
extenaion; that by no fair construction
can anything in that case be un-
doretood as giving any creator i'm
munity to corporations from obeyin9 general
legislation In regard to their buaiueas than
natural persons havo. The vital and essential
franchises only Of existing corporations aro by
that decision dnc]ared to be inyioIate. It docs
no more than place them On tho came level as
individuals puHuing tho same business. There
ia no exclusive right in = common carrier to
regulate rates Of toll, or fares and freight, upon
his route. The State possesses this power in tl,s
caae Of an Individual, and does not diyest iteelf
Of It to corporation when It grants It q charter
empowering it to do what all individuals posaeas
tho right to do without any logtslation.
The presumption. Mr. RodAeld holds, is against
all exclusive privileges, unless shown by ex-
press grant: Corpor ations and individuals alike
entcr on tho business subject to future 1egis1a-
tive control. This principle Mr. Rcadcld Illus
trates by humorous deosiona In the Supreme
Court OF the United statos, and Of the State
courts. The analogy OF the law is In favor Of 1t.
The regulation OF charges and the mode Of con-
Quoting business Of common carriers, Mr Red