Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1875-05-19

the act of 1874 are unreasonable, but
on the ground distinctly asserted In
the argument, that the Com pany has
the exclusive power to fix the measure
OF Ito own compensation, and conse-
quently that such an enactment a. that
of 1874 10 Q violation of Its chartered
rights.
In considering this claim Of the
company, IL cannot fail to arrest at-
tsntfon that the statute no where in
terms confers upon railway corpora
tions organized under II, the power to
fix or regulate their charges. We have
then, to deal with q case where the
Legislature has not expressly delegat-
cd to the Company the power 10 fix
It, own tolls or compensation.
When We consider the rule of con-
EstructioD, ~ Il IL definitely settled in
Great Britain and BY the courts of this
country, that any ambiguity or fair
doubt In the charters OF corporations,
operate in favor OF the pubic, and that
Ia corporate body can claim nothing
not clearly granted, it is quite plain
that the general power ito make con-
tracts, the Same % individuals" can
not be held to amount to q contract be-
tween the State and the company that
the latter should exclusively and per-
manently prescribe and regulate Ito
own charges. The surrender of legis-
lative power beyond recall, in 20 Inn
portant matter, cannot, in my judg-
ment, be implied from any such gem
eral language.
Undoubtedly, the railroad company
may demand compensation for its SER
vices. Il cannot 30 imagined that the
Legislature supposed the capital nec-
essary to construct and operate rail-
roads would be invested therein exc
cept for the hope Of profit to be there
by realized and there is no source of
profits TO railway company except its
earnings for the transportation Of per.
sons and property.
/ have NO difficulty, therefore, in
holding that the Legislature, either by
the express power 40 mako contrActs''
or, what SCENE the more satisfactory
ground, by just and necessary implics-
tion, did authorize railway corpora.
tions 10 demand and receive compen-
sati0n for their services; bat this 10
far short Of confarring upon them An
eaclNsige power in this respect, and one
beyond future Legislative control.
In all civilized countries the duty Of
providing and preserving safe and
convenient highways to facilitate trade
and communication between different
parts OF the State or community, 10
considered governmental duty. This
may be done by the government d.
rectly, or through tho agency OF cor.
porations cveated for that purpose
The right of public supervision and
control over highways results from the
power and duty of providing and pre-
serving them. As to ordinary high.
ways these propositions are unquestion
ed. But Il is denied that they apply to
railways built by private capital and
owned by private corporations, crea.
ted for the purpose of building them.
Whoever studics the nature and pur-
poses OF railways constructed under
the authority of the State by means Of
private capital, will see that such rail-
ways possess two fold character
Such railway 10 in part public and in
part private. Because of its public
character, relations and uses, the ju.
dicial tribunals OF this country, State
and National, have 1t length settled
the law to be that the State to secure
their construction, may exert in favor
OF the corporation authorized by IL to
build the road, both its power Of emf
mont domain and Of taxation. This
the State cannot do In respect of occu-
pations or purposes. private In their
nature. A way thus authorized and
established is intended for the public
use and benefit, although the capital 10
furnished by the corporations or share
holders, and the tolls belong TO them.
In its public character railroad is an
improved highway or means of more
rapid and commodions communities
tioD, end its public character IL not
divested by the fact that its ownership
10 private These general views have
been asserted by many State Courts,
but in this court It 10 suf17cient to refer
to the judgments Of the Supreme
Court OF the United States in tho cases
Of OIc0tt .. The Superrisors, l6 Wall.
678; Railroad Go. y. County Of Otoe,
l6 Wall. 673, and the very recent cases
known % the Topeka and IolA tax
cases, the opinions In which were Civ
en- by the presiding Justice Of this
Court.
In its relations 10 its stockholders, 0
railroad or the property in the road
and irs income 10 private property, and
subject to the lawful or reserved rights
Of the public, 10 invested with the
sanctity Of other private property
The distinction hero indicated marks
with general accuracy, tho extent of
Legislative control except whore this
haa been surrendered or abridged by o
valid legislative contract. Over the
railroad a. highway end In oil its
public relations, the State, by virtue
Of its general legislative power has
supervision and control, but over tho
rights Of the shareholders, 90 far a.
these arc private property, the State
hes the came power and no greater
than over other private property.
The power which the State may leg
itimAtely exercise over railways with
IN 10 ID subject 20 such further restric-
tions % it may have consented to by
express grants in charters in respect
OF which no power Of repeal or altera-
tons 10 reserved and by the commerce.
clause Of the federal constitution
which withdraws interstate com.
merce from State control and oonfiues
the State 70 the regulation Of its inter.
nal traffic. Az our railroad system Il
mads up Of links supplied under the
authority Of the several States it may
admit of doubt In our present knowi.
edge, whether . power In State thus
limited can be beneficially exercised
but this is legislative problem and
not judicial question.
Without further sularging upon the
| public nature and uses Of railways, OF
undertaking to review the authorities
cited, or examine the positions assumed
by council, which would necessarily
Lad through broad deld OF discuc
sion, I conteut myself, on this byancl
l 6 W subject with stating q ny On