Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1877-07-06
The State and Railroads.

| The decision OF the United States Su-
preme Court in the case of the Chicago.
Burlington & Quincy Railroad against the
State of Iowa settles an important question
relating to the control of STATE govern
ments over railroads. The substance OF
the decision as stated in the Chicago frib-
une Isl
That all quasi-public corporations are
subject TO legislative control as to their
charges but it also applies this principle
to railroads in novel and important way.
OF course the constitutional principle is
sustained that no State can impair the OBJ
| legation of contract, but the construc-
ton of this rule is very different from that
which the railroads have endeavored to
put upon it under the Dartmouth College
decision. The railroad charters are con-
tracts, but Ike private contracts are sub
iect 10 the constitution and laws OF the
State which issues them. In the case OK
private business transactions the courts de-
eide what is reasonable when dispute
arises; in the case of public contracts, or
charters, the State may fix the maximum
charges. beyond which it is unreasonable
aud hence unlawful to GO The State can
only be barred from this authority by ex-
press stipulation of the charter II grants.
At the time the Darlington aud Missouri
Railroad received its charter from the
State of Iowa (and this was the case in
hanu), it. might have demanded hat the
Stale Tx a permanent limit TO char ges and
make il part OF the charter; aud it the
State had refused to do this, the company
applying for the charter might have aban-
duned ii, and refused 10 build The road.
IL is possible that permanently fixing rates
in the charter might have prevented The
State from interfering at some future time,
though the court does not say SO absolute
~; but the company, having failed to Sc
cure this concession, has no right to resist
The legislative authority to determine its
charges. We do not know of railroad
company that has a maximum rate fixed
by its charter, and the decision in the Bur-
lingtoG case will cover all the other rail
road corporations.
The minor points in this decision deny
that State forfelts any oil its powers in
regulating public corporations by notusing
Them for any length OF time, be it long or
short. The fact that the power was not
exercised simply indicates that it was not
necessary in the judgment oil the body
polite, but change OF conditions at any
time enables the Legislature to exercise its
rights. 1t also held that the leasing Of
railroad to another corporation, as was the
case with the Burlington & Missouri, does
not affect the Legislative authority, and The
Chicago. Burlington & Quincy, in leasing
his road, did SO subject TO all lawful con-
ditions existing at the time of the lease,
even though they were not enforced till
after the lease. Sci, Is held that To e law
regulating rates does not conflict with that
part of the constitution OF the Safe which
which guarantees the privileges of a cti~
zen. The whole controversy resolves IL
self into the simple fact that corporations
enjoy franchises and special privi-
leges from the public are subject TO State
regulations in the matter OF charges; that
their possession OF charters does not re-
lease them from obligations to the consti'
ton and laws OF State; and that nothing
short Of fixing rates in tho charter itscli
can bar the State from the authority to es-
tabish at any time in the future"