Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1881-03-24

d, THURSDAY. MARCH III
continuing the use, but 60 long ~ he main. I
tains tho use he must submit to the con- 9
troll"
THE POWER TO REGULATE.
ut is insisted, however, that the !
owner of the property is entitled 10
reasonable compensation for it's pse,
even though it be clothed with pub
lie interest, and that what is reasqM>
ble is a judicial and not a Legislative
question. has already been shown,
the practice has been otherwise. In
countries where the common law pre-
walls it has heen customary from time
immemorial for the legislature TO de-
clare what shall be a reasonable CON-
pensation up1er sdSh circumstances
or perhap niSaa properly speaking, to
to fix maximum beyond which any
charge made would be unreasonable.
Undoubtedly in mere private con-
tractr relating to matters in which the
public have no interest, what is reason
able must be ascertained judicially.
But this is because the legislature has
no control over such a contract. So,
too, in matters which do affect the
! public interest, and as to which legis-
lative control may he exercised, if
, there are no statutory regulations up.
. on the sui ject, the courts must deter
= mine what is reasonable. The con-
A trolling act is the power to regulate q,
= all. If tha. exists the right to estab-
s lish the maximum of charge as one Of
J. the means of regulation is implied. In
l. fact, tho common law rule, which re-
i quires the charge to be reasonable, is
II itself regula' ion as to price. With
l. out it the owner could make his rate.
D. at will and compel the public to yielt
n to his terms or forego the use. But I
" mere commonlaw regulation of trad
in or business may be changed by statute
~ A person has no property, no veste'
le interest in any rule of the common
~ law. That is only one Of the form
e, of that municipal law, and is no NOR
or sacred than any other. Rights c
n property which have been created b
y the common law cannot he taken ava
er without due process, but the law i
er self, as rule of conduct, may /
e. changed at The will, or even at tn
rd whi,n, of the legislature, uni IS pr
oh vented by constitutional Limitation
ch Indeed. the great Office Of statutes is
he remedy defects in the common law &
as they are developed, and to adapt it I
nc the changes of time and circumstance
I'M To limit til. rate Of charge for Sc
es, vices rendered in public employment
.il or for the use Of property in whic
nd the public has an interest, is onl
.ge changing a regulation which existe
ac. before 1t establishes no new prime
les pie in the law, but only gives he
be effect to old one. We know that tn
me is power which may he abused, b'
nix that is no argument against its cxis
on ence. For protection against abus
tn by legislatures the peopl" must reso
Ibi to the polls, not to the courts. Aft
ate what has already been said it is unne
ent essary to refer at length to the effect
red the other provision Of the fourteen
to amendment, which il relied upon
mr. viz :, that no state shall deny to al
ate person within its jurisdiction the equ
Of projections of the Jaws Ca
'ees tainly it cannot be claimed that Il
oht prevents the state from regulating t
~. fare OF kackman or the charges
ali the draynen in Chicago, unless it dc
,ck the same thing in every other pla
!, of within its jurisdiction. But, as
nv Iecn seen. the po~er to regulate I
rov- business of warehouses depends up
Of the same principal as the power to r.
t;on ulate hackmen, and draymen, and wi
,wn cannot he done in the one case in t
,ur. particular cannot he done in
,sed other"
or After quoting Lord Hale as to {
,per. ries, wharves and wbarfingers, and
rop- decision Ct the Supreme court of A
hama, because the court thought ii
IT'S. found in them the principle which s.
/, the ports the legislation they were exa
yula- lnIn9, the opinion cohtlliues as lollo
mine Enough has already been said
king show that when private property
Ws W. devoted to public use it is subject
,cted public regulation. 1t remains only
juriz ascertain whether the warehouses
hef- these plaintifIs in error and the h,
,eais ,s:a, ne .s which is carried on there ca
m as within the operation Of this princi
perty For this purpose we accept as true
,thed statements of fact as contained in
man man elaborate brief OF one of the counsel
here the Piaihtlns III "Trof'
sc in
use, "rhus it is apparent that all the
y the ,,,,,;,,, ,.c;l;t;es ,hropob which II
Gre vast productions of seven or eight g