The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1874-05-14
REGULATION OF RAILROADS.


session q, the Court of Errors and Ap-
peGig Of Delaware, by Chancellor Bates, oi
that state, the criticism of which, by Judse
Redfeld, in the March number of the
I Legal Register, throws some little light on
the legal aspects of the Wisconsin Rail
road law. The action was instituted ly
one Bowers against the F,hiladelphia, VII
mington 4 Baltimore Railroad Company
20 recover S56.S as penalty for over
shaysin. bT the Company, for carrying
freight from New York to Wilmington at
a greater rate per mile than it had
charged for similar services between Port
Deposit, in Maryland, and Wilmington
Del Toe legislation bearing on tho sub
iect viii be found il the following section
of an act Of the General Assembly Of Del
aware passed april II, 1874.
SEC. 4. That if the said Philadelphia,
Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Com pany.
or any other rsiiroad company n this State,
shall either as the operator 6f its own rail
roads within the state, charge and receive "a
greale, rate per mile for the carriage Of pas
GeGg-rs tcxcept so far as the same may be
increased to tie amount Of tie tax anuua ly
paid Under the provisions OF Chap, 45S, Vol.
~ Of the Laws Of Delaware or Tor the car.
ii re or transportation Of goods, wares or
merch tad!se or other property whatsoever,
from place 10 place within the State, or
place without the State, than is chnrged by
such company for the calIiagc of passengers
apd the transportation of property or freight
Tor Ike dist or per mile, from places
with ,EJ the Stute to places wi7hin the State,
or from places within the State through the
State to other places without State, the pe;-
son or persons paying such charges, either
rs fare or freight. shall Re entitled &c recov-
er from such company 50 charging and re,
ceigug the sIne Il sum Of ten-foll the
amount Of the money 50 paid, to be recover
ed in N action Of the 1lebt or dSsugDOSit, as
ike amounts are now recovered by law.
Bon ers recovered in the Court below,
subject 10 certain questions reserved for
the Coert of Errags aud Appeals. That
Court he u thar any aot restri1tin. any
lreGchisc vested in a corporation by it,
chatter, and material TO the beneficial ex-
ercises Of the grant, is an imrairing of the
Obligation of a contract, wi.hln the prphi-
bition Of the Constitution; that an act reg
u,ating raitway charges-no sucA power
haYing been resergeI in the Charters
void, and that such "a aot is not w.,hin
the police power of the State Julye
RedfsIi, perhaps the highest authority in
the country en- railway law, finds fault
with the cpmjcn lf Chancellor Bates. lie
lees not think the grounds on which the
lecisiaG i. l.ased terahlc, even when the
Constitution loes not, as it does in Wis
consin, reserve 90 the legislature the right
20 modify or repeal the charter of Il corpor
a,iOn. H. does not grant that the power
20 adjust its own tariff Of clarsea By It's
own officers, according to their Cwn views
of the necessities Of husinesS, and withou.
supervision is part Of the franchises of
railway corporation anywhere He claims
thu. corporatiuns. like ratural pprsoqs, are
Il ijnct 10 ren.cdial legislation and amenda-
BIZ to general laws.
Chancellor Bates relied in his opinion On
the Dar' mouth College case. Dir.
Redfitll thinks be mi supplies the law of
that case, and says that if the doctrine
"f the Dartmouth College case reached 30
far into the domain Of State lo.i>lature as
To exempt corporations frcm lts cCstrol ex,
cept when favorable "a ;heir y.i>hes. it nov-
er ouaht 10 - 81 been made, aui the soon
or It Is reversed 'hc better" lie thirks,
h"wcver, that there is no fairness in Civ
-rg tEat case any such extension; that hv
no rair construction can ANYTHING IN that
case lie under TODD as giving any greater
immunity to corporations from chewing
general legislation in regard 10 their bus
mess ,hnn natural parsnns have. The VI
tai and cs=e';ii. franchises only o. exist.
ing corporations are Ly that decision de-
cIared to he inyiolate. 1t docs no more
than place them on the same level az indi
yidnals pursuing the same business
There 5 NJ exclusive right in a common
carrier to regulate rates Of ton, or fares and
freight, upon his route, The State pos
sfsSeS tnis rowc. in the case Of an in
dIgiduai, ard does rot divest itself If it Ia
q "rTPoro .icr when it grants 1t charter
empowering i t do what all in5vidu,lS
possess the right To do without ,ny lesrs-
i1tron.
The presumption, Mr.. r. liell holds, is
against al exclusive privileges, unless
shown by express grant. Corporations
and indyiiu.l alike enter On the business
subject to future legislative control This
1rinoir'A Mr.. Rel6ell iIlax;rates bv aumcr
ons decisions in tie supreme Court of
the United States, and Of the State ganrts.
The analogy af tnr law j. IN favor az II
Tte regulation Of char-cs and tho mode Of
charges and the node "f conducting hr,i
ness OF common curriers', SIR Redf-Il
It inks. is snljrct OF legislative action.
especially since the era Of tie railway svs-
tem-q system IN which there - no eompe
ri.ion, anl in which thcre j therefore. a
most Overwhelming monopoly" TIE
chart"rrUg If y railway 70 Iecont n com
mon carrier implies only that II mrv 10 a.
other common carriers aie allowed by lar
81 do. If the Legislature has thc rawcr
to sav that h1ckmrn o. tessnSserS shalI he