The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1877-07-11

The RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE
RAILROAD TARIFFS,

The RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE
RAILROAD TARIFFS.
The United States supreme court has
recently made decision rcailirming the
sovereign powers of states to regulate
railroad tariffs in all cases where the
charter tails to establish special eXemp.
ton from such Interference. The title Of
tie c4.e va. the ChicagO, Burlington and
Quincy railroad company, appellant
vs. L. NJ Cults. Attorney General, etc,
Tie following IS ali extract from 'hr
opinion delivered by ajel JI.'ie, N2ii-.
Railroad compalie, 4fe l4l..eIs sgl
hire. They ar incorporated as f.ga-
aud given extraordinary power. 10 U'3ri
| that they may the better serve the pub
| lie IN that capacity, They are, therefore,
| engaged Ia u public employ mrnr Affect
| ing the public interest, and under the
| decision in Mum and Scott v. the peo-
pie, just announced, subject 10 lcgisla
tive control as TO their rates OF fare and
freight unless protected by their char
tiers.
II he Burlington and Missouri River
railroad company, the benefit OF whose
| charter the Chicago, Burlington and
| Quincy railroad company now claims,
was organized under the general corpor-
alton law OF Iowa, with power to con-
tract in reference TO its business the
| same as private individuals, and to es.
tablish bylaws and make all rules and
| regulations deemed eXpedient in relation
| to its affairs, but being subject never
theless at all times to such
rules and regulations as the
General Assembly of Iowa might
from time to time exact and provide.
This is in substance its charter, and to
that extent it is protected as by con.
| tract within the meaning of that clause
in the constitution OF the United States
which prohibits state from passing any
law imparing the obligation Of con.
tract. Whatever is granted Is secured
subject only to tho Examinations and res.
eryatons in the charter or in the laws or
constitutions which govern it.
This company, in the transaction Of its
business, has the same rights, aud is
subject to the same control as private III
| dividuals under the same circumstances.
1t must carry when called upon to do so,
and can charge only reasonable sum
for the carriage. In the absence OF any
legislative regulation upon the subject,
the courts must decide for it, as they do
for private persons when controversies
arise, what is reasonable. But when the
legislature steps In and prescrihcs a
maximum OF charge, II operates upon
this corporation the same AS it does upon
individuals engaged i'll q similar business
1t was within the power OF the company
TO call upon the legislature to fix perma-
nently this limit aud make it part Of tn,
charter, and II ii was refused 10 abstain
from building the road and establishn.
The contemplated business. II that had
been done, the charter might have pre-.
sented a contract against future legisla,
tive interference but it was not, and the
company invested its capital, relying up
on the good faith OF the people and the
: wisdom and impartiality ot legislator
for protection against wrong under tn,
form of legislative regulation.
1t isa matter OF no Importance thai
the power of regulation now under con
c sidcratlOn was not exercised Tor NOR
I than twenty years after this compan,
I was organized. \ power OF govern
-, ment which actually exists is not lost b.
=. nonuscr. A good government neve
u pu's forth its extraordinary power
4 except under circumstances whicl
require it. That government is the bes
which, while performing all its duties
interferes the least with the Lawful
Y pursuits OF It's people.
1t is held that it does not affect the cas-
that before the power was exercised til
! road had been leased and its incon,
1, pledged to the payment OF its debts, an
/, that as the road was wholly within III
state the latter had full power in the al
sence OF legislation by congress. 1t
, also held that the statute is not in col
fict with the constitution Of the Stat
concerning the privileges OF citizen
, Affirmed.