The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-07-19
The s.rangeT-Ran- Dad Derislon-
state Control over Railroads.

Lawyers and intelligent farmers will
be profoundly interested in the follow.
ing decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, Just rendered. The
facts are as follows:
No. 3s4-The Chicago, Burlington aud
Quincy Railroad Company appel
liant, v. NJ. f. Cuts, Attorney Gem
ersl, ETC., st al. Appeal from the
Circuit Court of the United States
for the District of Iowa.
Railroad companies are carriers for
hire. They are incorporated as such
and given extraordinary powers in or
der that they may the better serve the
public IN that capacity. They are.
therefore, engaged in public EN-
ployment affecting the public interest,
and, under the decision of Mum &
Scott V. The People, just announced,
subject to legislative control as to their
rates of fare and freight, unless pro-
tected by their charters. The Burling-
ton and Missouri River Railroad Cons-
pany, the benefit of whose charter the
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail-
road Company now claims, was organ
lied under the general corporation law
Of Iowa, Win power 10 contract In TeT-
erence to Its business the samc as
private individuals, and 10 establish
by laws and make all rules and rcgula-
tions deemed cxpcdicnt in rela- Z
ton to its affairs; but being subject,
nevertheless, at all times 10 such rules
and regulations as the General Assem-.
bly Of Iowa might from time to time
enact and provide. This is in sub
stance its charter, and to that extent ID
Is protected as by a contract; for it is
now too late to contend that the char
ter of n corporation is not a contract
within the meaning of that clause in
the Constitution of the United States
y hich prohibits State from passing
any law impairing the obligation of
contract. Whatever rs grated Is SC
cured, subject only TO the limitations
and reservations in the charter or IN
the laws and constitution which govern
It. This company, in the transaction
of its business, has the same rights,
and IL subject to tho same control, "a
private individuals under the same cir
cumstances. IL 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 de-
eide for it, as they do for private per-
sons, when controversies arise, what Is
reasonable; but when the Legislature
steps in and prescribes maximum Of
charge, it operates II poa this corpora
ton the same as it docs upon individ-
ualS engaged in Il similar business. It
was within the power Of the company
to call upon the Legislature to fix per-
maneutly this limit and make il n part
of the charter, and If IL was refused
to abstain from building the road and
establishing the contemplated business.
If that had been done the charter
might have presented contract against
future Legislative interference. But it
was not, and the company invested its
capital, relying upon the good faith of
the people and the wisdom and inn
partiality Of Legislators Tor protection
against wrong under the form OF legis-
lativc regulation. 1t is matter of no
Importance that the power of regula-
tion under consideration was not exer-
C sci for more than twenty years after
this company was organized. A power
| Of government which actually exists is
not lost by non.use. A good govern
BBRtA Anvek J29ts faEIthe its eXltEaiQpEdliinaEgg eXl
which REQUIRE it. That government is
the best which, while performing all its
| duties, interferes the least with lawful
pursuits of its people. In 1891, during
the third year of the reign of William
and Mary, Parliament provided for the
equation of the rates of charges by
| common carriers. This statute re-
NAMED in force, with some amend
ment, until 1927, when it was repealed
and it has never been rc-enacted. No
one suPposes that the power TO restore
| its provisions has been lost. 4 change OF
| circumstances seemed to render such
a regulation no longer necessary, and
it was abandoned for the time. The
power was not surrendered. That re-
mains for future exercise when re-
quired. So here the power Of regula-
ton existed from the beginning, but
it was not exercised until, in the judg-
ment OF the body polite, the condi-
ton Of things was such as TO render il
necessary for tho common good. IL is
held that it docs not affect the case,
that before the power was exercised
the road had been leased and its IN
come pledged TO the payment of its
debts; and that as the road was wholly
within the State the latter had full
power in the absence of legislation by
Congress. 1t is also held that the
statute is not in conflict with the Con-
stitution of the State concerning the
privileges of citizens. Affirmed. Tho
Chief Justice delivered the opinion.