The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-02-08

| nUuAH VI NHNNhWtHH ANHANNAuS fANNoA
noon In Advocacy OF His Bill 10 Regu
late Freight charges on Railroads.
In accordance with a vote Of the Houst
last week, making Speaker Wilson's Rail
road bill the special order for yesterday
afternoon, 1t was taken up at that time.
Mr.. Wilson took tho floor and made On
exhaustive and lengthy argument in favor
Of the bill, which he said was one OF the
most important measures that will be
acted upon at this session OF the Legisla
ture, II not, indeed, the most important,
lie quoted the provision OF the Constitu
ton that "the Legislature shall from time
to time pass laws applicable to all railroad
corporations In the State, establishing
reasonable maximum rates OF charges fol
the transportation OF passengers and
ireights, and providing for the prevention
OF unjust determinations between through
and local freights and for the
protection OF the just rights Of the pub
lie, ETC., and shall enforce such laws by
adequate penalties"
The significance OF the word shall was
pointed out. The clause was not permis'
sive, but mandatory. II was not that the
Legislature may, but that II must, legislate
In the manner indicated. But when some
such measure as that now under consid
Grafton Is proposed, we are met In the be-
ginning by the opposition OF those who
champion what they call "vssted rights, u
the idea that the provisions OF q charter
form contract within the inhibition oi
the Constitution as to laws affecting the
validity OF contract, This theory was
elected by the present speaker. He held
that railroad Is public highway, and
being 30 the State retains the sovereign
control oil It justias Of any other public
highway. II the Legislature can allow the
ultimate power over railroads to pass from
1t, It can by its own act give TO another
body the control ot turnpike or any
other highway.
This lead up to the following legal
proposition: II IN act Of the Leg.
islature create public corporation
and road be built by that corporation,
said road must be subject to Legislative
control. A railroad corporation Is a pub
lie corporation. Several railroad magnatea
shave had the impudenCs" to refer to the
Dartmouth college decision as a basis fol
their claim that railroad corporations are
not subject to Legislative control. The
fact was pointed out that this decision
antedated railroads. The decision was
not applicable 10 railroad charters: rail
road companies are public corporations
Dartmouth college is private corpora
ton.
The decision OF the United States Sn'
preme Court in the case OF Mum vs. the
State OF Illinois, rendered In 1876. was
quoted as settling the whole railroad CON
troverBy.
What Is a railroad but a common car,
rier? live have power to regulate at al
the power to fix rates is implied, and this
involves the right 10 disregard any pro
vision Of the charter. So we are bacl
under the old common law rule In regard
TO common carriers.
Liberal extracts were quoted from the
letter OF Leland Stanford, President Of the
Central Pacific railroad, to the New York
Chamber Of Commerce Committee on
Freights and Transportation, which letter
was printed In the 1NTELLI0ENCER two
weeks ago.
The principle was there advanced thai
the nature oil corporation, whether pub
lie or private, depended Upon whether II
was intended for public convenience Of
private emolument. This Mr.. Wilson tool
to be strong argument In support OF hi
position.
The statement was made that the rates
now fixed by the laws Of this State, II en-
forced, would be prOhibitive OF all traffic
The decisions 10 the "Granger cases" ant
an old judicial opinion Of Judge Jert
Blacks were quoted to sustain the righI
10 control freight and passenger charges
by legislation. .
The Baltimore 4 Ohio Company, said
the speaker, or at least Mr.. Keyserj Rayt
that that company is not subject TO the
act Of 1887, but 10 the act OF iS47, which Il
formally accepted. The case Of Marshal
county vs. the Baltimore & Ohio Com
pany, a suit for $4,000 delinquent taxsl
was referred 10, and II was stated that thI
Company, alter their case had been re-
manded from the Supreme Court, hat
been glad to compromise By the payment
OF $25,0 900.
In answer To the claim that the B. 4 o
Co. was not subject 10 the law of 1887, the
decision OF the Court Of Appeals In the
case OF Hart Vs. the 3. 4 U. Il. Il. wal
quoted, where II held that the b. 4 o. %
have accepted and are legally governed bj
The acts ol both lS47 and 1887, and that II
80 far as they are applicable they becomt
part oi The Oompany's charter.
The provision OF the law was lher
quoted which gave the Legislature the Ugh
after the net earnings Of the u. X Y
company had equaled the Eost Of Consttuc
lion and keeping Ia repair, and ak pei
cent oil such sum In addition thereto, TO 6l
the charges OF the company at such q rate
AZ would enable II 10 fealiEe q reasonable
dividend. That the earnings had full|let
this condition long since he thought no
body would deny.
THE CnEsAPRARE ONO ROAD.
This company Mr.. Wilson showed Otoot
in somewhat different light OF the Law
than the B. & O. The O. 4 o. Railroad
Company's property was sold. and iS nov
owned aud operated by the D. 4 o. Rail
ray Company. Al the time the pufChasI
was made the franchises OF thI
company did not pass, True thl
new organization vas atterward per
mitted 70 acquire the franchises Of tht
old one, but In doing 90 they got then
subject to all the provisions oi intervening
. legislation, including the Constitution o
1872. Decisions Of the U. =. suprem
. Court were quoted 10 show that this wa
the law on the subject; that the franchise
Of the old company only pass In so lat q
: they are not In conflict with laws paeset
. lhnhAAnnAnIlK 10 the charter. The oil