The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-03-24
rhe Georgla Rallroad DeolsIon.

Georgia adopted new Constitution
which provided for the creation of q
Railroad Commission to regulate and
prescribe freights and fares. The Com
mission being duly organized, 1t prepar-
ed q schedule of fares and freights which
it proposed to enforce. One of the cor
porations Of the State applied for an in
iuction restraining the Commission from
proceeding further. claiming, among
other things. that neither the Commits
sion nor the State could interfere with
the rights ofprivate property, which the
company declared is railroad 10 be.
Judge Woods, of the United States Cir
cult Court, at Atlanta, rendered his de-
cision maintaining the validity of the
Georgia Railroad Commission. The de-
cision is very elaborate and important.
After reviewing the whole ground, the
Judge concludes as follows:
1t was clearly the purpose of the pso-
pie in adopting the revision of the or
ganic law of 1877 to keep the charges of
the railroad companies of the State
within legislative control. They were
not satisfied with the rules of the common
law on this subject. The Act of Octo-
Der Il, 1878, is but the practical express
ion of the will of the people of the State
as embodied in their organic law. 1t is
the exercise of a right which they have
been careful to reserve and subject to
which the defendant company were al
lowed to exist as corporation. My
conclusion is that the Act ofthe Legis-
lature of Georgia, approved October IA,
1878, entitled an Act to provide for the
regulation of railroad freight and pas
senger tariffs in this State, etc., is not
in violation of either the Constitution of
the United States or of the State of
Georgia that under the Constitution of
Georgia power and authority are confer
red on the Legislature to pass laws to
regulate freight and passenger tariffs on
railroads and require reasonable and
Just rates, and it is its duty to pass such
laws that it may prescribe such rates,
either directly or through the interven-
ton of a Commission, and that the ques
ton whether the rates prescribed by the
Legislature, either directly or indirect
ly, are Just and reasonable Is a question
which, under the Constitution, the Leg
islature may determine for itself 1t
results from these conclusions that the
motion for injunction pellde1lte hte must
be denied, and the restraining order
heretofore allowed must be dissolved
and it will be so ordered.
In the opinion in which the foregoing
decision is announced, the Court de-
clares that the right of the Legislature
to supervise and prescribe freights and
fares exists, unless the companies are
protected from such interference by their
pre-existing charters. We quote as fol-
lows;
1T is settled that Railroad Companies
are subject to Legislative control as to their
rates of fare and freight, unless protected
by their Charters. Num- VS.. Illinois 81,
United States, liz. Chicago, ETC., Railroad
Company VS. Iowa, '94 United States, ISL.
"When the charter of Railroad Com~
pany allows it to charge maximum rates of
fares and freight, but the right is reserved
to the Legislature to appeal or amend the
charter, it may change the rates prescribed
by the charter by establishing a maximum
limit beyond which they shall not go. Pick.
VS.. Chicago, etc. Railway Company, "a
United States 164.
Alabama has just passed a law identi-
cal in character to the Georgia law.
California and other States have had
similar laws in existence for longer
period.