The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-12-30
NUMBER 80

: !
company can receive no interest on its
investment, and it may be compelled To
continue business that can only end in
bankruptcy. | am tolerably familiar with
the late decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States, but we have not vet
rescued condition of the declared law
whlch VIII sanction an interference bv the
otate with the contracts made by their
| railroads with customers unless in the
charters themselves or in the condition Of
tue fundamental law under which they
were granted and accepted there was a
reserved power of revision and alteration
In 1876 Mr.. Chief Justice Waite said. re
ierrlng to the Granger cases, we decided
tnat the State may limit the amount of
re Dy railroad companies for fares and
irelghts unless restrained by some contract
IN their charter The Legislature could
not be so restrained by the charter If by its
CONSTITUTION, as was the case in Wisconsin
all corporations are liable TO have their
charters altered or repealed at the will of
the Legislature. Whenever there is no
such constitutional provision and the resar-
vatlon Is not made in the charter itself the
charter stands as an inviolable and unalter-
able compact between the State and the
corporation. In the Iowa case relating
to the Chicago, b. and Quincy Railroad
a Otto) Mr.. Chief Justice Waite expressly
declared that railroads were subject to legis-
latlve control as to their rates of fare and
freight unless protected by their charter 1t
may be reasonable enough to hold
that State Legislature cannot grant AWAY
| any of the powers that are reserved in its
Constitution, and therefore that it cannot
make valid contract with a CORPORATION
which will prevent the State from exercis.
ing such reserved powers. But now it
would seem that we are to have an onslaught
upon all the railroad corporations in the
I IN try Nv ~. II
ration OF the charters If the corporations
are mere public agents, managing public
property, why not turn them out of the
| office and substitute other managers 1t
would be as easy as it is to remove one col
| lector from custom-house and to put in
| another the only thing which stands in
| the way is the Dartmouth College case, and
that l apprehend will continue to stand
| there for some time to come. At all events
l do not see that the Supreme Court of the
present day has yet rights nor, until they
have overthrown it, do see how a railroad
built from private funds on the faith of n
charter, is to be converted into property
belonging to the people, unless they take it
and pay for it under their power OF eminent
domain. There is no possible process of
highway robbery by which they can get
hold of it. They may destroy its capacity /
to pay dividends, but when they have made |
1t lnsolvent the poor remnants must be dis /
tributed to its lawful owners or to their /
creditors,
"There is one proposition in Judge Blacks
letter which, it may be safely predicted, will |
not be established. 1t is, if 1 understand |
him, that State charter authorizing a cor
poration to take land for a railroad would be
unconstitutional and void if it leaves the
company to fix its own charges for the use
of the road. His language is, IF the compa-
ny may charge what it pleases, then the road
is not public highway the public has no
rights in it at all, and the charter which au-
thOrizes the taking of land to build it is un.
constitutional and void | wonder what sort
of State Constitution it would be under
which this amazing proposition could be true
The legislature may annex such conditions
as it pleases, besides requiring payment, and
it may annex none other so long as it re-
quires that. In either case its grant or dele
CATION of the power to a corportion is val
id grant. Perhaps my very acute and able
friend would say that it is not taking for
public use, unless the grantee of the power
is made to agree that the State shall regu-
late the charges for the use of the land taken
But the practice of our States and the whole
current ofour judicial decisions establish the
principle that it is for the Legislature to de-
termine what is public use, and that the
consideration which the State receives for
granting authority to take the land is to be
found, and found only, in the public benefit
which will flow from the use which the cor
poration proposes to make of it. | do not
observe that Judge Black has pointed out
any satisfactory mode in which Congress is
to legislate upon the rates charged by rail-
roads doing an interstate business. All that
| can say now is, if ! were manager of rail
road which makes contracts for the carriage
of merchandise from one State into another.
that | should wish before / assented to have
Il L.
better assured than L am at present
that Congress has the power to regulate
them. The best general description of the
commercial power of Congress that | have
met with in recent times is that given by
Mr.. Justice Field in delivering the unani-
nous opinion of the Court in Railroad
Company VS.. Richmond, 10 Wallace $50.
The power to regulate commerce among
the several States was vested in Congress in
order to secure equality and freedom in
commercial intercourse against discrimina-
ting State legislation it was never intend
ed that the power should be exercised so as
to interfere with private contracts not
designed at the time they were made to
create impediments to such intercourse If
a State leaves all the carriers of such com
merce within and through her limits free to
engage in that business upon just such
terms as they think they can afford, know
not how it can be claimed that the contracts
create any impediment to the freedom of
interstate commercial intercourse. Judge
Black maintains that the rates must be
reasonable and just. But as he rests the
power to determine what is rea-
sonable and Just upon the position that the
railroads are public highways and public
property, he assumes as a basis of the
legislative power a foundation that should
be established by something more than
assertion. And here it may be observed that
if the railroads chartered by State as pub
lie highways and public property, they are
public highways and public property of the
State which chartered them and within whose
limits they exist How then is Congress to
legislate on the use of the public property
of State? Does the fact that a railroad,
chartered by State, carries merchandise
from or through that State into another,
make it also public property of the United
States The power of the State to regulate
its domestic commerce is as extensive as
the power of Congress to regulate inter
State commerce. What one may do in its
own sphere the other may do in its sphere.
Neither of them, in my opinion, can find
any foundation in the assertion that rail
roads are public highways and public prop
erty in the sense of debating the terms on
which they may be used, or of prescribing
the contracts which may be made with Gus
toners. Nor is the case helped by chang
Ing the ground ana treating the railroads as
common carriers for in that capacity the
whole question turns upon their charted
rights | have no observation to make
upon that part of Judge Blacks letter which
relates to the Western roads that have been
built in whole or in part out of the proceeds
of public lands of the United States or by
the aid Of the credit of the Government.
The relations Of those roads to the United
States are peculiar, and whatever may be
frtta If than CON afford verv little aid in |
the right of the State or of the
United States to interfere in the private
contracts of corporations chartered by
State and built from private funds"
Josh Billings
Science il one NV the lost arts.
Real good lies are Citing skarse