The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-26
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

same vs. John GIBSON, grand larceny; Same vs. FRANK
oBrien. grand larceny; Same VS.. Margaret Smith,
grand larceny,
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
THE IOWA GRANGER cAsE-THE POWER OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO REGULATE THE CHARGES
OF THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY
RAILROAD UNDER IT'S CHARTER AFFIRMED.
WASHINGTON, D. c., June 20, 1917
The following decision has been rendered in the Su-
preme Court OF the United States
No 324.-Tho Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail.
road Company, appellant. vs.. NJ T. Cults. Attorney
General &C. ct aL-Appeal from the Circuit Court oil
tho United States for the District ofIowa
Railroad companies are carriers for hire. They are
incorporated such and given extraordinary powers
In order that they may the better serve the public IN
capacity. They are therefore, engaged In pub
S the ~ hs vs. ss Pecue
just announced. subject to legislative control as 10
their rates OF fare and freight, unless protected by
their charters.
The Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Com.
pany the benefit oil whose charter the Chicago, Bur-
hngton and Quincy Railroad Company now claims.
organized under the general corporation law OF
Iowa. with power to Contract reference its bush
ness, the same private Individuals and to establish
bylaws and make all rules aud regulations deemed
pedienL In relation to its AFFAIRS but being subject,
nevertheless At all times to such rules ana regulations
the General Assembly oil Iowa might from time
time enact and provide. This is in substance Its
charter, and to that extent is protected as BY
rac tor 1t is now too late to contend that the charter
OF corporation is not contract within the meaning
OF that clause in the Constitution Of the United States
which prohibits State from passing any law IMPAIR
ing the obligation OF contract Whatever granted
is secured subject only to tho limitations and reserva
tons in the charter or in the laws or constitutions
which govern IT, This company, in the transac.
ton Of its business, has the same rights and
10 subject to the same control as private
individuals under the circumstances. Ii must
carry when called upon 80, and can charge only
reasonable sum Tor the carriage. In the absence OF
any legislative regulation upon the subject the
must decide for H. as they do for private persons
when controversies arise, what is reasonable; but
when the LEGISLATURE steps in and prescrbes
maximum OF charge 1t operates upon this
poration the same as 1t does upon individuals
engaged IN similar business. II was within
the power Of the company TO call upon
the Legislature to fix permanently this limit and mako
1t part OF the charter and If 1t was refused to alb
from building the ROAD and establishing the
tempaed business II that had been done the charter
might have presented contract against future legs-
laIivo interference But It was not and the company
invested its capital relying upon the good aitn Of the
people and the wisdom and impartiaity Of legis-
lators for protection against wrong under the
form OF legislative regulation. II is a
matter OF no importance that the power of
regulation now undor consideration not exercised
organized. power OF government which actually
exists Is not lost by non-user. good government
never puts forth It's extraordinary powers except
under circumstances which require IT, That govern
Is the best which, while performing all It's duties,
interieres the least with the lawful purs,ts Of It's
In 1901 during the third year Of the reign Will
lam and Mary Parliament provided for the regulation
I'll 1897, when was repealed, and il has
never been reenacted. No one supposes
that tho power TO restore its provisions has been
lost. change of circumstances seemed to render
such q regulation no longer necessary, and It was
abandoned for tue time The power not
dered that remains for future exercise when required
SO here the power OF regulation existed from the be-
ginning, but Il not exercised until in the judgment
Of tho body polite the condition OF things such
as to render Il necessary for the common good.
1t held that It does not affect the case. that before
the power exercised the road had been leased and
It's income pledged 10 the payment OF It's debts, aud
that the wholly Htnin the State the latter
had full power In the absence OF legislation by Con-
gress II also held that tho statute not
ct with the constitution OF the State concerning the
privileges OF citizens Affirmed.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.