Arizona weekly enterprise., 1882-09-16

the legislature had power to prescribe maximum pf charges to be made by said company for transporting persons or prop erty within the State, or taken outside the State and brought within it, or taken up inside and carried without" In the case of the Chicago, Milwaukee X St Paul Railroad Cd. vs. Ackley, and in the case of the Wisconsin lS St. Paul Railroad Go. vs. Blake, the supreme court held to the same opinion, in fact we challenge MT Barret to cite single decision of this court of last resort, that presents a con trary doctrine.
 A majority of the eastern states have, within the few years just past, fixed maximum of charge for freights and fares, and the railroads, governed perhaps by | the supreme court decisions, have not at- tempted either to evade the acts, or con test their legality. Texas and Nebraska | have added such laws to their statutes but recently, and the railroads came to i their terms immediately
 There is another point in railroad con- trol that MT. Barret has probably over looked, and that is that courts of Equity, in the absence of state laws on the sub ject may regulate the actions of railroad companies, so far as they pertain to the public interest, or affect the common good In this connection we quote from an opin- ion delivered July 31, 1882, by Judge Baxter, of the circuit court, s. D. Ohio, w. D. It so clearly defines the relations of railroads to the public, their power over community for good or evil, and
 liability to the control of courts, that we
 print the major portion of the opinion,
 which is as follows:
 l 'sRailroads are9potential agencies, con
 stitute very considerable part of the ma
 tional wealth, and deserve to be fully pro-
 tected in all their charteredrights. BuS
 while they are essential to the contiGed
 prosperity and to the furtheF- develop
 ment of the varied resources of this great
 country, they are susceptible, when man.
 ipulated in the interest of selfish schemes,
 of being perverted to the most unjust and
 oppressive uses. They necessarily mon-
 opolize all inland carrying business, and,
 if unrestrained, can by unjust discrimina-
 tions, favor some individuals and commu-
 mites to the very serious detriment of
 others. Hence the frequent efforts made
 to control them Ill the interests of indi-
 viduals and communities. By establish
 ing or abandonin:ya depot, they can de-
 preciate or enhance the value of private
 property, and by extending or withhold
 ing facilities, increase the profits or inhict
 losses on all persons engaged in commer-
 cial or other pursuits dependant on their
 favor. An advance ot two cents per
 bushel on the grain annually carried from
 the grain-producing west to the eastern
 cities, with a corresponding increase upon
 all other classes of freight, would
 impose tax upon the industry of
 the country exceeding in amount the an- nual levies made by congress for the sup
 port of the national government. If per mitted, they can so regulate their freight
 charges as to exact from each locality de- pendent upon them the utmost farthing l which the circumstances of each particu- , lar case and the absence of wholesome i. | Y
 instance, where competition is sharp, they can carry passengers and freight over their entire lines for less than they charge
 for short intermediate distances, simply
 because, in the one case they are controll- ed by competition, and in the other, in absence of such competition, they have it , in their power to extort the utmost farth- 1 ing which such intermediate business is
 capable of bearing. Those who have them in charge, can organize side or col
 lateral business enterprises, and so man. ipulate their roads as to seriously cripple 1 their competitors and add to their own profits. These are but some of the possi-
 bilities incident to railroad management Nevertheless, with all their capacity fol injustice, they cannot be dispensed with l But are their duties and obligations to in e dividuals and to the public to be meas [, ured by the judgment of interested par ties, using them to further their own self ish schemes, or by the courts2 And if by - the latter, to what extent may the court f go in supervising their actions and i'll re v straining abusesl These are grave ques tions, which we will now endeavor tt answer
 The great and fundamental principle ol h which we rest the conclusions hereinafte O stated Is the concededfa fact that railroad cor 1T porations are quasi public corporation dedicated to the public use. It is upol II this idea that they have been investe, 1t with the power of eminent domain,-th l. authority to take and appropriate privat J. poperty to their use by paying jus ( compensation therefor. They have beel
 created tor the purpose of exercising tn ,, functions and performing the dutles 0 J. common carriers Their duties and lia n bilities are defined by law. In acceptin ;r their charters they necessarily accep
 them with all the duties and liabilitie J. annexed; that is to say, they undertak Is to construct the roads contemplated b Iy their several charters; to keep them i r. good condition; equip them with suitabl
 rolling stock and safe machinery; emplo :" skilled and trustworthy laborers; provid to suitable means of access to and egre. a- from their trains; erect depots and desis
 nate stopping places wherever the publ
 necessities require them; supply. to u 'n extent of .their resources necessary an sh adeanate facilities for the transaction ,e all the business offered; deal fairly an .o impartially with their patrons; keep pa, 'O with improvements in railroad machiner rt and adapt their service to the varying n
 cessities and improved methods of doiI
 business
 mt The granting and acceptance of such m charter creates quasi public trust, al ,ct clothes the public with an interest in u of use of railroads, which can be controll,
 by the public with an interest to the e -er tent of the interest granted therei me Mum vs. Illinois, 94 U. S. 126 to 13 ar. inclusive. But how and by whom G m. this quasi pub lie trust be administeredl to The defendant insists that relief cam si- be given by this court The contenti