Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1879-01-25
THE POWER OF STATE LEGISLA-
TURES-THE BUGBEAR OF
INTERSTATE COM
MERGE

The gst of the opinion in the case of Mum
Va. Illinois ought to be made familiar to every
man in the State in and out of the Legisla-
tire. The nature of that case is described in
the opening words of the opinion delivered
by Chief Justice Waite. Those words are Is
foilows:
The question to be determined in this case
i. whether the general Assembly of Illinois
can under the limitations upon the power OF
the States imposed by the Constitution of the
United States, fix by law the maximum of
charges for the storage of grain in warehouses
ct Chicago and other places in the State, hsv-
ing not less than one hundred Thousand in
habitauts g in which grain is stored in bulk,
and in which the grain OF different owners Is
naked together, IN which grain Is stored
in such manner that the identity of differ
ent lots or parcels cannot be accurately pre-
served."
In the body of the opinion the Chief JUS
tice says:
Every statute is presumed to be oonstitu-
tional. The courts ought not to declare one
TO be unconstitutional unless 1t is clearly 80.
Il there is doubt, the expressed will of the
Legislature should be sustained.
That is pretty straightforward law! Here
is some more: In the case of the Chicago,
Burlington and Quincy Railroad VS.. Iowa,
Chief Justice Waite, delivering the opinion of
the Court, said;
Railroad companies are sub
iect to legislative control as to their rates of
fare and freight, unless protected by their
charters.
If, as the Central Pacific Railroad Com
paay profess, they are protected by their
charter, Why are they so anxious lest this leg
isiature pass an act reducing their rates of
fares and freights and prohibiting their no
torious determinations
These same principles are reiterated in the
sn-called 6 Granger cases, suoh IN Polk VS.
the Chicago and Northwestern r R.; Chi
cago. Milwaukee and St. Paul K. r. Va. Ack
ley; Winona and St. Paul E. r. VS. Blake.
sad Stone ys. Wisconsin.
Now what says our own constitution with
regard to corporations aud their control BY
the Stated Let's see Says section one of
Art. VIII: Corporations may be
formed under general laws; and all such laws
s.ay, from time to time be altered or re
pSaled. Section or the sans ATGlclo
says: Corporations created by or under
trs laws nf the Turritory IF Nn0ad2 shall DC
subject TO the provisions Of such Laws anti
the Legislature shall pass laws regulating She
same, in pursuance of the provisions Of this
Constitution" That seems to be plain
enough Again. referring to Chief Justice
Yates opinion in Mum VS.. Illinois, we find
him laying down this principle, namely:
To limit the rate of charge for services
rendered in public employment or for the
use Of property in which the public has an
interest, is only changing regulation which
s;sted before.
Ne knou that this is power which may be
abused but that is argument against its
existence. For protection Against abuses by
legislation. the people must resort to the
polls not TO the courts,
Also says the same high authority
Enough has been said to show that when
property ID devoted to public use 1t Is subject
- public regulation.
These are some of the authorities on the
subject Of the power of the Legislature t"
regulate fares and frelghts ON the railways
thin State lines More anon.