Arizona weekly enterprise., 1882-09-23
Railroad Control,

The Tucson Daily Star publishes, in full, our discussion of it's statement to the effect that railroads were private property; could be used solely in the interest of in
 dividual acquisition, and were no more subject to legislative control than was the business of q mercantile firm. In the same issue is printed an elaborate reply in which the Star very gracefully retreats from its erroneous position by asserting that it had not entertained the views we ascribed to it in our premises. While pleased to see our contemporary disown such views, we must insist that 1t voiced them in an editorial paragraph, but re-
 gently. We could not be mistaken for its language was not ambiguous, but spe- cifc, and would admit of no other inter. pretation. A reference to its file will convince our contemporary that we stated its position falrly and correctly. But waiving further consideration of this point we will proceed to meet the Star's objec- ton to our argument.
 Having receded from it's former posi- ton by denial of it, the Star now ad
 mits our allegation that railroads are com mon carriers, therefore private property
 affected with public use." This ad- mitted, it only remains for us to prove, in order to sustain our position, that com
 mon carriers, or ''private property affect ed with public use, |" are subject to stat utory regulation. This we dId, in our first article, by citation of authorities,
 which the ,Stdr does not undertake to dis prove, except by mere assertion unsup- ported either by logic or the findings of courts It simply says, 1.-The claim that the legislature has the right to fix the maximum rate of freights on railroads is not covered in the case of Mum V. Illinois, cited by the ENTERPRISE" but does not support its contradiction by quoting the language of the decision. If
 we erred, proof of the fact would have
 been found ill the language of the court,
 and the Star could have sustained its de-
 nial by quoting that language. But to
 prove that we did not err, we will again
 quote the language of the supreme court. In the case of Pick V. Chicago, etc. Rail road Company, the question for decision was as to the power of the legislature of l Wisconsin to provide by law maximum
 rate of charges for freights and fares and
 the supreme court of the U. s. expressly says: 'In Mum V. Illinois, supra P. 113, and c. B. X Q. R. R. V. Iowa, supra P.
 155, lce decided that the stdte may limit
 the amount of charges by railroad con.pd't-
 ies for freights and farcs" This is the ex- Q act language of the supreme court and is s certainly plain enough to be understood 9 The case of c. M. X St. P. R. R. V. Ack- V ley, 94 U. S., p. 179. and Winona X St.
 Peter R. R. Go. V. Blake, 94 U. S. p.
 1S0, were expressly decided upon the au- !. thority of Mum V. Illinois, Pick v. c a N. w. R. R. Go. and c. & N. ". R. R. r Co. Ioua as VIII pc seon by any per
 son taking the trouble to examine the re
 port of the cases. In fact each and all oi l these cases are, in effect, solemn afr : nation of the doctrine which the court e laid down in Mum V. Illinois. The sen d tence from the Supreme Courts decision
 which we quote above, is only one O
 many equally as positive declarations O
 the legislative right to regulate freight.
 and fares to be found i'll the opinions O.
 that court, and our contemporary vii
 certainly not repeate the folly of disput
 ing these facts of record. We are chari 1 table enough to believe that Mir. Barre l. had not consulted the records when hC ' penned the following wild and insupport s able statement: "We say to the ENTER d PRISE, neither the Supreme court of ; # State, nor of the United States, ever de
 clared that legislature has power to f1
 the maximum rate of railroad freight
 The instance nor the case cannot be cited ;, for no such decision has ever been made. u In reply to this we need not go futhe '' than to call attention to the Suprem, V court decisions cited above. They furn '' ish complete refutation of the state
 ment.
 i. 'We concede," says our contemporary T, ''that the legislature has the right to fiji ., a maximum rate. But having once fxec T, it,-as in the concession that the railroaC ,s shall be allowed to charge passenge
 tariff not to exceed ten cents per mile
 and the rate has been accepted by tn D. corporation, in the agreement to whicl r. reference IS made, e,-the legislature can if not say, That is too much; and the max d imum shall be five cents per mile.' !" w of hold that 1t has unquestionable right so t V do, unless in the act creating the corpor is ation, the legislature relinquished, no
 impliedly, but in express terms, the righ
 to alter or repeal the charter, or to super io wise the rate of charges. But even if 's charter should contain clearly expresse i9 relinquishment of that right, it would nc 'o relieve it from future legislation in som u States, (as we will show further on) an 'n some authorities go to the extent of de 'r claring that no charter granted by legis
 lature is inviolable. A learned writer i