The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-02-08
Legislative Regulation Of Railways.

proper equilibrium VI thSlA ASSPS~e-.o
aud enjoyments in reference to each other
should be understood and maintained. am
a friend to railroads. Without them our civil
izAtion would lose its right arm.
That there are genuine causes for the pub
lie discomfort concerning railway manage
ment. no unbiased person can deny. Its sgi
taiion is not the fruits Of demagoguery or
popular pgejudic and ignorance.
In the most populous centers it il constantly
discussed, and the present system is often ar
raigned as subversive Of the common rights,
oppressive in many instances, and unjust
1t has become the theme of the merchant
and the manufacturer all over the land, and
there is no end to the literature of this sub
jeet from the most commanding and impartial
sources.
Then it is high time for the progressive and
scornful statesman who feigns contempt for
this grave topic, to give it some thought, and
quit trying to frown it down or smile it away
Beyond the Atlantic the question is at rest
The government controls. Whether this il
permissible in the United States, or, if so
would it be wise, is what the American pub
lie have to decide. Or if there be such 5
power, is it lodged only in the Federal Gov
eminent, or has each State similar preroga-
i've?
l apprebend il is universally conceded that
under the Federal Constitution, Congress car
supervise railway transportation, so far as il
tends 10 regulate commerce bstuesH the States
Of course it is powerless to regulate railroad
E q ~ Ind n
other 5tstes. Then Federal legislation would
fall short Of a complete cure for the evils com
plained Of. If Congress were the only source
OF help, the people of a State would be at the
mercy Of railroad that did not extend he
yond it's limits. or if it did, as to freight and
passengers taken up and put of within It's
borders. Therefore, leaving out Of view the
phase of Federal legislation on this subject
let US look at it as legal and economic ques-
ton affecting our State polity purely.
Tie question is two-fold: First-has the
State the power to regulate the tolls of these
corporations? Seconds it a sound policy?
s5me deny both. Some admit both. Some
admit one and deny the other.
As 10 the power:
No one denies that the Legislature can re-
serve the power when comforting the charter
la this state il has never been done expressly.
Or does our Constitution reserve such a right
to the Legislature. Then is the Legislature
forever precluded as to all existing charters
of railroads in our State. | think not. I'm
til late period it was conceded by layman
and lawyer, egislat or and jurist. that charter
authorizing a railway company to regulate
] 1. =. L Il
levy and collect just what it pleased to, so far
as | z slative interference was concerned.
nd indeed 50 deeply rooted in the
common mind was the dogma of vested
rights that few imagined it could ever be
Questioned even in ldicial proceedings. No
lawyer denies that such charges may be super
vised in court of law, that one can thus
recover excessive charges, charter or no
charter. Tnen there is distinction without
much differ nee If jury can scale the prices
and say what is right, why not the Lsgisla-
ture?
OF course it viii be answered, in the latter
case there is no " due process of law" But
that is special pleading, and fails to fully vim
dictate the sacred inviolability of vested rights
= The controlling fact is the power to regulate
at all J"
In countries where the common law prevails
1t has been customary from time immemorial
for the Legislature to declare what shall be
reasonable compensation speaking with
reference to property clothed with "A public
Interest. IHuna. Illinois, "a u 5. K. 1884
No less "a parsonage than Judge Cooley says
Now, when one appeals TO the State TO
put forth his behalf its sovereign |
authority to compel another to abandon 10
l. \ Al.
necessary claim that his business is affected |
" til pubic interest, and that, in short, be /
proposes TO act as an agency for The public in |
some puoiic purpose or supply |
lag some pubic necessity"
The right of eminent domain is given by /
the SAFE TO railroad corporations to enable /
them 10 coerce the citizen into q Surrender OF
his freehold for their purposes; and on the
express Constitutional ground that it is for
the public use"
- ivate property can not be taken for 'pri-
Eate use; It may be for public use."-Section
9TH, Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Now, if the great public is the principal
hat cohfers these powers On their agents, as
Judge Cooley calls them, for beneiesnt public
purposes, IS il MOI preposterous to say the
lgeut can tie the hands of the principal
md use the trust in such manner as suits IT
selfP Is the prlucigal p0Werless to complain?
-t Is novel 10 10 say principal can confer u
JF control. III So. then the stream rises above
8 source. Chief lust ce W ate says: prop
.rtY does become clothed With public inter-
st Yhen used in a manner to make il of pub
&c consequences, And affect the community at
arge; when Their for, one deyotes his proper
y TO use in which the public has an inter-
ISL he, in effect, granls to the public an inter
st in taat use, and must submit to be controll-
ID bg the pa6fic Iortne common good, TO the
xIent OF The interest he has thus created. He
nay withdraw his grant by disseminating the
Isei bat so long as he maintains the use, he
nus submit 10 the control. Mama Z. Illinois,
!, U. 5. Rep. p. f26.
Indeed taIs power inheres in every SOW
reignty, aad to deny it, is to deny the very
iame and nature Of sovereignty. Common
arriers are frequently assimilated in judicial
vri ingd to public officers.
No business 80 posently and sensitigely af- !
eets the world around il AS the present vast
ailway system in the United States.
In the above case the owners of a grain ele-
tator in Chicago were fined for violating q d
arif CT charges prescrl bed by the Legislature.
here was charter in it, or act of incor-
eration. 1t was their own private property.
Messls. Justices Field and Strong dissent '
ng. emphasized the fact that in that case the :
overnment had bestowed no peculiar rights :
n the owners of this elevator, and hence did
ot invest it with "pablie interest that
be property was jWriS privafi solely. Where !.
ecahtr privileges are conferred By the pub !
10 they admit US q gener ii proposition, that '
roperty becomes We ted wnh public interest
nd SO subj act TO public regulation. 1T mat
srs net, they say, how limited the privilege :
its acceptance implies an .
ssent To the regulation Of IT. use
I'D the compensation or it. The privileges
-hieh haekmen ahd draYmea have to the use u
stands on the public streets, not allowed to
rdin4ry coachmeR or iaborers with teams, I
Onstitute sufficient warrant for the regula- y
on OF taeir fares MuaR D. Illinois 81 o. s. !!
ep. p. 149 =
For a stronger reason why not railroads !
hey are armed with extraordinary attributes, !
20 well kuown 10 designate, but which are ?
ecesSary to carry on q work so eomprensive !,
I'd complex. Whereis the reasonin saying the :
egisla ure or city authcriIies OF jackson, can !,
re.er be the fare cabmsn saail charge me u
ON the capitol 10 the depot, ard yet nc 8
lrshly power shall prescribe my fare from =
acksen 70 Vieksburg on the railcoad except u
lie common carrier Iself9 I,
q The latter is chartered. you see, is the 3
aswer. That is contract. The rail- 2
nd has vested right to run its trains and p
iassish its charges to salt ITSELF" Ali s
ereis the Publ Let US look into that q
this be ths law, then the LegisiG- Ie
re and the public arc powerless, and g
ey can only profit b. the lesson they have y
armed and keep their eyes open aud their Z
lnds united in the future. 2.
8 Fhe strongest plume in VISIONS pinioa, n
Is he memory Of past folly. rs.
That chapter is = contract cannot now be u
uied, within the meaning Of the Constitu- n
= =