Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1880-12-17
RAILWAY REGULATIONS.
Judge Blacks Arrangement Of the
Great Trunk Roads.

Judge Blacks Arrangement Oh the
Great Trunk Roads.
The New York Chamber of Commerce, in
August last, addressed a circular TO various
prominent citizens of the country, requesting
their opinions in regard to the subject of rail-
road freight-rates and the propre,y of legis-
lative interference for their regulation. II was
claimed shippers were treated not alike even
| where all the circumstances were eqDal-that
certain sections derived advantages by special
arrangements which were denied to other Sec
tions. The leading idea was to ascertain the
feeling of the country concerning the assump-
ton by the companies Of the right to charge
whatever the traffic will bear" rather than
adopt reasonable tariff based on the cost
Of service. Last year the special committee
on railroad transportation addressed the presi-
dents of the New York Central, Erie, Penn
aylvania Central, and Baltimore and Ohio
railroads, asking them to draft an act for the
regulation of interstate commerce, which
would be fair to both the railroad and the
public interests, and submit it to principal
commercial bodies of the country for con-
sideration. Beyond an Acknowledgement ofth
letter and an admission by the presidents, OF
the necessity of something being done, moth
ing ever came from this effort, and from their
strenuous opposition to all measures that have
been proposed thus far in Congress looking TO a
fair solution of the problem, the conclusion
| is arrived al that the railroads desire to leave
things as they are, and are not willing to ad-
mit that the public have sufficient interest in
the operation of these modern highways to
entitle them to a voice in deciding the princ-
pies which should govern their management.
AS one valuable contribution toward solving
very difficult question however, the COM
mittee have received the following letter from
Judge jeremiah Black, of Pennsylvania:
YORK, Pa, Nov. l6. 1880.
Committee on Railroad Transportation Of the
! NeV York Chamber Of Commerce:
GENTLEMEN You propose movement in
favor Of some legal regulation which will COM
pei railway companies to perform their duties
to the public on proper terms. ] will answer
your questions as directly as possible, but
without observing the order in which you put
them. You desire above all things to be just.
The legally vested rights of railway compa-
mics, like other rights of property, are sacred,
and no violation of them comes within the
scope of your design.
But on this.auestion railroad men msunder-
stand their situation. They believe, or pre-
tend to believe, that railways are the property
of the companies authorized to run them,
which is the cardinal error, and the parent of
much false argument A public highway
cannot be private property and a railroad laid
out and built by the authority of the State
for the purpose Of commerce, is as mmch a
public highway as a turnpike road, canal or
navigable river. 1t is the duty of the State
TO promote intercourse and trade by making
highways Of he best sort through her terri
tory To this end she may take land and
xtstt i4h ia of ba NM pat.
Of eminent domain. She can build a railway
at her own expense, using the direct agency
of her own officers, and after it is built she
can make ii free, to all corners or reimburse
the cost by special tax on individuals who
have occasion to use it. She can delegate the
taking and the taxing powers to corpora
tlon or a natural person, and that is what she
always does when she grants railroad char
ter. But in either or any case the road be-
longs to the State, and all the people have a
right to use it upon compliance with the ne
cessary regulations and payment Of the proper
tax,
The corporations who have got into the
habit of calling themselves the owners Of the
railroads have no proprietary right, title or
claim to the roads themselves, but mere
franchise annexed to and cxercisable thereon.
They are the agents of the State for the per-
be forfeited or surrendered or if it expire by
efilux of time, the State takes possession Of
the road and runs il herself or employs IA new
agent. The company cannot keep the road
any more than an outgoing collector of port
can appropriate to himself the custom-house
where he did his official work. The State hav-
ing need for public highway at a particular
| place, makes a contract with corporation to
open and put it in condition 10 be used, and
by the way of reimbu rising the bsilders and
| operators, she authorizes tax upon those
| who travel or carry merchandise over it. But
this tax must be reasonable, just, uniform,
prescribed and fixed, so that every citizen may
know beforehand exactly how much he must
pay, and so that when be pays or tenders the
proper amount he will acquire an absolute
and perfect right "to the use of the road
The amount of the tax, tell or freight in
any case is not Il subject of bargain between
| the shipper and the corporation, but a thing
TO be settled, fixed and prescribed by public
authority. II the company may charge what
it pleases, thepsthe road is not Il public high
way the public has no rights in it at all, and
the charter which authorizes the taking oil
land TO build it is unconstitutional and void
These principles were stated by Judge Bald
win in Bonaparte VS.. the Camden and Am
boy Railway Company. You will find a more
extended discussion of them by the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania in Casey VS.. Erie ana
Northwestern Railroad Company. do moi
think they are opposed by any high authority,
but no doubt they have often been overlooked
in judicial decisions and forensic arguments
The railroads being public property, in which
all the people have equal rights, aud the COM
panies that run them being public agents, it is
absurd to say that the State has no right to
rn0u IN nd in, arf,
of their functions by such laws as will prevent
Partially, plumber and extortion. This is a
power Of which no free State can disarm it,
self by any act of its judicial, legislative OF
executive officers. They could as lawfully sell
the State out and out, and deliver up the en-
tire population to sack and pillage, But are
not the franchises property in which the COM
pany has a vested right2 Yes. The privilege
OF taking certain fixed prescribed, uniform,
reasonable rate of toll from all persons alike
according to the use they make of the road is
power that the State may bestow upon any
person, natural or artificial But no lawful
franchise 10 take toll on a public highway
can exceed those limits. charter that goes
beyond this is void. Those companies will
oppose any effort TO bring them down to a rea-
sonabe rate, with the argument that such re-
duction is a violation Of the contract between
tuShi "hu NhO but Ou Aut pTluClplt ldlu
down by Judge Baldwin in the case above
mentioned a charter is imperative which au-
thorizes maximum Of toll or fare so high
that the company is able without exceeding it
to exclude the people from using their own
road In the Granger cases from Iowa and
Wisconsin, the bargain was that the compa-
MES might fix their own rates. But the Su-
preme Court of the United States, held that a
subsequent law to restrain them within rea-
sonabe limits was no violation Of the original
contract. This principle applies to a company
whose maximum rate is unreasonably high, be-
cause such rate is practically the same thing
as no Limitation at all.
The conclusion that all the railroad corpo-.
ations in this country NAV be constitutionally
restrained TO reasonable and just charges Is
not merely drawn from the fact that railroads
are public highways. II they owned the cor
pus Of the road and used II in the business OF