The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-03-09

the Legislature 10 as unlimited as that Of
the English Parliament, or, In other words,
the Legislature possesses all power not
prohibited in the Constitution, Cooley
Oonst, Lin. 1916. MCOulloCh v Mary
land 4 Wheat. 400; 8 Mich. 25S; q VT
l4O; and that 1.-THE police power OF Q State
In 4 comprehensive sense embraces ies
system OF Internal regulation to preserve
the public order and prevent otenses
against the State, and to establish for the
intercourse Of citizen with citizen those
rules Of good manners and good neighbour
hood which are calculated to prevent con-
dict oil rights and to insure to each the nm
interrupted enjoyment Of his own, go lar 90
ia reasonably consistent with the like en-
ioyment Of the rights Of others,, lOooIey
Cons, Lin 572; and that Q railroad is 9
corporation created Tor public benefit, and
10 which the Government delegates Q por'
lion OF its sovereign power, TO be exer-
cised for public utility, though etfeCting
incidentally private advantage; q mere
agent or trustee OF the Government to
work out the public interests through the
means provided for that purpose. i. 4,
We, People 10 A, NJ, Law Reg. n. y: $50
Marsh ys. R, r. IL A. N. Law Reg. N. b.
500. Swan We. Williams, 2 Mich. 4S4],
These being uncontroverted, the courts
have held that the power To regulate
freight aRd charges on railways and the
compensation In other public employ;
ments comes within the police power Of
the State [Thorp .ys. +. K. y Vt. lay,
Mum vs.. lllinois o. U. 8. 1923, The People
va. 4, R, 70 N, Y. 1901 "snd In the exer.
else OF this police power, England from
time immemorial and this country from
its its frat colonization, has regulated
ferries, common carriers, haCkmen, bank.
ers, millers, whaIfingers, inn keepers, ETC.,
by fixing maximum oil charge 10 be made
for services rendered, accommodations
and articles sold, and such regulations do
not come within the Constitutional pro-
hibitions against interference with private
property MUM vs. Illinois 94 U. y. 125;
Governor ys. Meredith 7. K. 700 Dillon
mumic, corp. N 93, 29l, 3l3-340l. Indeed
The decision In the Granger cases [94 U, s.
l25-lSS] especially in Winona r. r. vs.,
Blake and Chicago R. r. vs.. Ackley rest
upon this ground, and establish the doc
trlne .'that when private property Is
effected with public interest 1t ceases TO
be private property only, and beComel
clothed with q public interest when used
In a manner TO make 1t Of any consequence
and To effect the community at large. ut
is easier to determine whether given case
comes within the scope OF the police
power than to define the limits Of the
power itself. [Stone vs.. Miss. 10l U. s. 8l7.
Rights Of property, like other rights, are
subject to this power State vs. Alger 4,
Cush. "a, Dillon Corp, 1857, In the license
cases RS How. 6S91 Il was decided that the
State may, under this power, prohibit the
sale Of intoxicating liquors, even though
contracts made prior to the passage OF the
law are annulled, and under the same
power the condemnation and destruction
Of the liquor itself Is valid. Tour House
vs. State 4, Green, Iowa, 40. In the
Beer Company case t97 D. s. 26l the char.
ter was granted In 1928 to manufacture
malt liquors In Boston, and under the
prohibitory liquor law Of 1869 It's liquor
was Con6sCated and 1t was commended that
this was In derogatlon Of It's charter
rights, but the Supreme Court Of the
United States held that this act was
made In pursuance Of the police
power Of the State, which power Is not
molested by the Federal Constitution, that
the charter could be annulled, and that II
conferred no greater right than any citizen
had, nor does II exempt the corporation
from any control 10 which citizen
would be subject II the interests OF the
community should requireit. And In the
Dartmouth College case a Wheat 5lS) the
court held that charter must yield 10
police provisions, as the regulations OF the
civil institutions for the internal govern.
ment OF State. But this power must be
exercised properly and not to Arbitrarily
and unnecessarily interfere with private
rights and property; they must be police
regulations In lact and not mere amend.
ments TO the charter In Curtailment OF the
corporate franchise Cooley Const. Lin.
677) yet until II Ia judiCially determined
that statute is an unreasonable and un.
necessary interference II has every pre-.
sumption Of consLitutionality (Thorp. v.
r. X 81 Vt. 140)
The Legiature cannot by any contract
or enactment diYest itself OF the power to
provide for and regulate matters coming
within the police power oil the State They
belong TO that class oil objects which de.
mand the application Of the maxim, SdltIS
pOpuli SttpreMa ler, and they are to be at.
tanned and provided Tor by such appro.
pirate means as the legislative discretion
may devise; that discretion cannot be bar.
gained away Beer Go. va. Mass. 81 U. s.
%, and as Chief Justice Waite said, the
Legislature cannot transfer or bargain
away the police power OF the State [Stone
vs. Mrs. 10l U. y. 8l7; Boyd Vs. Alabama
94 U. 8. 945; State vs.. Bird u Macs. 443;
Met. Board va. Barrie "a N, Y. 657,1
The Granger cases [94 U. s. 125-1SS1
under charters granted by Illinois, Wis.
consin, Iowa and Minnesota, invoked the
broad questions whether the Legislature
had the power 10 prescribe O maximum Of
rates, and the decisions were that the Leg.
islature had the power 10 control the ex.
ercise Of corporate franchises In relation 10
chatges for freight or tolls [Winona R. R.
Va. Blake 1870, 10 MINI. 1923, State vs.
Wisconsin o. U. s. 1873 In Ruggles vs.
the people, Of Ill. 25e, the Court held that
the Legislature had the power 10 pro.
vide maximum rate even though
the charter gives the corporation that
power, and In this respect railroads are
not exempt from legislative control any
lees than ferries, inhkeepers and Others
having quasi enployments, over whom
the power has been exercised from time
lmmeinoflAl [Nightengale's case, II PICK,
1903; Mum vs. Illinois, "a U, 8. 1851 In
ChiCato r, r. vs. .ACkley, "a D. s. l79, and
Peik vs., Chicago X, r., "a U. 8. 17S, the
court held that the Legislature may ix a
limit for freight charges, which limit binds
the courts as well % the people, and II Il
has been improperly fixed the legislature,
not the courts must be appealed 70 for The
change. In Chicago r. K, vs. Iowa, "a u,
8. 18f, II was held that unletB restrained
by some contract In The chatter, the charges
were subject 10 legislative control, even
though the income may have been pledged
a. seCtifitv for The PAYMENT OF OBLIGATIONS