New-York tribune., 1877-06-27

the contract formed by charter ctlllOu po
impaired by any subsequent legislation, ana
vet. in respect to the control OF the state over
charges, it IS declared that, even If the charter
had fixed permanently the maximum OF charge,
it might have presented'-not, be it observed,
would have prescnted-"a contract against
culture legislative interference" The choice
of the word might" in a decision rendered
after more than a years consideration, seems
to show that the court is not disposed to hoid
that valid contract would he formed even by
distinct provision in the charter authorizing
a company to charge not more than certain
rates But the possible exception can be only
on the score of the reaSonableness OF the
charge. Apparently it follows that, even IL
the Legislature grants power to charge to a
certain maximum, if that charge through sub
sequent changes i'll commerce becomes uDreas-
| enable, il Is still for the courts to decide
whether such a charge can be defended on tho
score of contract.
H. short, the principle ruling In all these de-
ciSi0ns is that every grant OF contract Is hi'uo
subject TO the general power OF the state 10
| prevent unreasonable chargcs by common car
| riers. Where 10 maximum has been iiNeu III
the charter, it is held that the company Is
L" subject to the same control as private lnui-
yiduals under the same circumstances" lie
| common carrier has no right to charge more
| than q reasonable compensation; every grant
| is made subject to that restriction; ana tne
courts. if called upon, may decide as they DO
for private persons. or the Legislature may de-
| termine by law whether charges are reasona-
! bile or not. Nor does the failure Of the State
| to exercise this power diminish it in any de-
gree The argument of t1c court on mus
point il very strong and convincing. "hAO-
ever power the State had originally 70 pre-
vent abuse of privileges or unreasonaoie
charges by common carriers, that power IL
retains. Whether exercised or not, ana all
! grants or charters or leases in the absence OF
| special and competent provisions to The con
| trary. are held to be subject t. that general
power of control.
1t cannot be denied that tleso decisions very
greatly modify the powers which railroad cor
norations have been generally supposed 10
derive from their charters. Every road Whioh
has not in its charter some fixed maximum,
which it is permitted to charge, Is heid 10 ne
clearly subject to the decision OF the Legs
lature as to the reasOnableness of its charges
Even those which lave some fixed rate named
| in charters may or may not be suOject 10
the same control, for the chartered provision,
! if the language of the latest decision is not
carclessly used, may or may not constitute Il
valid contract These decisions come more
over after an experience of some years
| in attempts to control railways by law,
and that experience has certainly taught
us that State Legislatures may DO
the most extraordinary and dangerous
things. under the gllise or with the mistaken
desire of protecting the public nights aud inter
ests. II has recently been shown that the Iowa
law-the very enactment which the Supreme
Court sustains--has not only ruined many oi
the railways in that State, but has led TO The
payment of very large sum, by The pro-
duccrs and consumers of that State, more than
they would have been compelled 10 pay under
previously existing rates 1t has been proved,
by stern experience, that Legislatures can bank
rupt corporations and render their property
practically yalucless, even while comforting 30
benefit, bat innicting positive loss, upon the
community, and upon the very people who
have clanored for such action. Yet to the
control of Legislatures, which may or may not
be wiser than those we have seen, nearly all
our railways seem TO he subject. 1t vii! not
be strange if the decision excites some alarm.
-------------------