The daily gazette., 1880-12-22
From the N. Y. Herald.
THE RIGHTS S0FTHE PEOPLE AND
THE RIGHTS OF RAILROAD !
44o CORPORATIONS.

ly exp0unded what IN their opinions are
the constitutional relations existing be-
tween the State and railroad corpora
tons created by It,. The specific ques-
ton considered 10 whether thvrels any
power In the State or federal govern
ment to regula and control these cor
porations in the matter of freight and
passenger charges. The greater prin-
ciple involved is whether this vast and
growing corporate power Is to be sub
ject to the sovereignty Of the people or
is to rise above and become independent
Of that sovereignty. Mr.. jeremiah S,
Black recognizes an absolute supremacy
in the government. He maintains that
railroads are public highways that be-
long TO the State and are under the con
troll Of the State "The right Of the
people to control the road" he claims,
sis so deep rooted that neither the legis-
lative, executive nor judicial officers Of
the State eau bargain. it away any more
than they can lawfully sell the State
out and out and deliver up, the sn,Le
population to sack and pillage."a Com
sequently charter giving 10 q corpora
tion absolute control over It's charges
would be void. That Congress has full
authority to regulate Interstate railroad
traffic he has not the least doubt.
Mr.. George Ticknor Curtis takes Is
sue with Judge Black on several impor-
tant points, and gives to the public quite
| different exposition Of the legal prih-
ciples in controversy. He admits that
the State has the power to regulate rail-
road charges when 1t has expressly re-
served TO itself that right, but maintains
that in the absence of such express res
ervation "the charter stands as an in
violable and unalterabe compact be-
tween the State aud the corporation"
If the Stale, he argues, may reduce the
company's charges single penny or
fraction of penny 1t may reduce them
to point that will bankrupt the COM
pany. He doubts, if he does not deny,
the power of Congress to regulate the
railroad traffic. nail BAN +
Mr.. Curtis prepared his opinion for
the Erie Railroad Company. Judge
Black wrote his for the New York
Chamber of Commerce, which repre-
sents the peoples side in the contro-
versy. Neither of these jurists has
given strictly accurate, sound judi
cial exposition of the constitutional
principles brought under discussion.
What, then, are the respective rights
of the people and of the railroad cor
porations Of the country? ai . u
1t cannot be denied that railroad
corporations have acquired certain
vested rights which are secure against
legislative invasion. With such rights
there is neither power nor wish on the
part of the people to interfere. But
what are these vested rights? Is free
dom to charge "all the traffic viii
bear" a vested right? Is the privileg,
of imposing an unjust and unlimited
tax on the producers Of any region by
sudden and exorbitant advances O
rates a chartered right? Have thes,
corporations an irrevocable right /,
bankrupt men here and ruin place
there by arbitrary and outrageous dis.
ordinations in rates made eithe
openly or indirectly by rebates an,
drawbacks? Is the pooling of freigh
without any regard to the msrcahtil
intel ests of the community charter
ed right? Has the railroad power
sacred right to throw trade and grea
industries into disorder and confusio
by waging selfish and destructive war
of rates? In short, is there in thi
mighty confederacy of corporations a.
invioable right to prey at will upol
the vast agricultural, commercial an,
manufacturing interests of the couu
try-upon the very industrial life o
the people? The answer to these sig
nificant inquiries must depend upo
the question whether railroad corpol
ations are beyond the control an,
reach of the government in the matte
of their freight and passenger charge
The principle is unquestioned that tn
charter of railroad corporation is
contract between the State and th
company, and that it is protected b
that clause of the federal constitution
which prohibits State from passin
any law impairing the obligation of
contract.
Even when no express reservation
has been made by constitution O
statute, and is not in the charte
itself, the State is still clothed wit
the right to regulate the companies
charges. On this point the Suprem
Court Of the United States has spoke
directly and clearly. "The State,
said Chief Justice Waite in NOR
than one Of the granger cases, "ma
limit the amount of charges by rail
road companies for fares and freight
unless restra ned by some contract il
the charter" What does this mean
1t means that in all cases the Stat
has the rightful power to contro
charges for freight and passengers un
less it has voluntarily parted with tha
right by an express agreement tina
the company's power to charge shal
be without limitation or restraint
Judge Black, as we have seen, goes s.
far as to maintain that even in tina
exceptional case the State would no
lose its right of control, because, a
he holds, such a character woult
be void. But this is question abou
which we need not concern ourselves
since charters of this kind are for
tunately rare.
But the the principle cannot be shak
en- that in ihe absence of such express
stipulation in favor of the company tn,
power of regulating, limiting and con
trolling charges remains with the State
And this power Is complete. The Stat,
may fix a maximum or minimum
hmit. 1t may prev, Mt unjust inequalitle!
AMI determinations. IL may authorize
the comp,ny to fix reasonable rates
tit Is for the Legislature to determine
what are reasonable rates. And ali this
Is equally true whether the government
has or has not expressly reserved the
right to itself. In neither case is the
| ohlipation of n contract inDairad or a