Arizona weekly enterprise., 1882-09-16
Railroad 1wnddIe.

therefor a legitimate means of furtherng private gain, without regard to the gen eral welfare of the communities through which they pass, and that the legislature. has no legal right to fix the maximum rate they may charge for freights and | fares. We are surprised to see Il gentle man of Mir. Barret's intelligence take | such untenable ground. He cannot cite | single recognized authority in support of either proposition here quoted, while the decisions of high and low courts to the contrary are almost legion.
 The first proposition, viz: "That rail roads are strictly private property" can not be sustained, for the reason that it has been universally held by the courts, in which the question has been raised, that railroad corporations are quasi public corporations, dedicated to the public use. 1" That ''in accepting their charters they necessarily accept with them all the duties and liabilities imposed upon them by law, and thus quasi public trust is created (which clothes the public with an interest in the use of railroads" Lord Chief Jus tice Hale, the great English expounder of the common law, said, more thantwo hun dred years ago, that when private prop erty is affected with public interest it ceases to be j,uis priuati only," and then he named as coming under this head, mills, ferries, warehouses, turnpike roads, hacks, common carriers, etc, and this ] statement of the law by Lord Hale has been oited with apr-obation by every em
 inent jurist since his day, and Ina. free quently been quoted by the supreme court of the United Statesin rendering decisions against railroads. To quote the language of Chief Justice Waite, it has been ac- cepted, without objection, ever since, as an essential element in the law of prop erty.
 The claim that the legislature has no legal right to fix the maximum rate of freights and fares on railroads is even more at variance with every known and accepted principal of law, than is the first proposition laid down in MT. Barret's pre- mises The supreme court of the United States has declared, in Mum vs. Illinois, that under the power inherent in every sovereignty, government may regulate not only the conduct of its citizens toward one another, but also in what manner each one shall use his own property when 1t becomes necessary SO to do, for the pub lie good. The same court, in the same case, further says, Chief Justice Waite de-
 livering the opinion, that ''it has in the
 exercise of these powers, been customary
 in England from time immemorial and in
 this country from it's first colonization. to regulate ferries, common curriers', hack
 men, millers, inn-keepers, etc. and, ill
 so doing, to f1 maximum of chdrge to bt made Jtor seruices rendered" The opinion in this case is elaborate and goes on to
 show, that not only was this principle oi
 common law, as laid down by Lord Hale applied in the regulation of common car,
 riers in England as long ago as the thlrc
 year of the reign of William and Mary but that when the people of the United [ Colonies separated from Great Britan , they merely changed the form of govern . ment and not the substance. 'They re tained for the purposes of government, al 1 the powers of the British parliament, anC s through their state constitutions, or othe
 forms of social compact, undertook to giv,
 practical effect to such as they deemed
 necessary for the common good and thu
 security of life and property" Amoni
 the powers thus retained was the powe
 to regulate common carries and in discuss ing this power, in late decision, Chic
 Justice Waite says: "The limitation b.
 legislative enactment of the rate of charg
 for service rendered in public employ
 ment, or for the use of property in whicl Q the public has an interest, establishes n ,- new principle in the law" After quotin C Lord Hales exposition of the commo IS law, in which the right of government IS to regulate charges fer the use of pr s vate property affected with a put e lie interest" is declared. Chic ,t Justice Waite concludes by saying
 Common carriers exercise sort of put
 office, and have duties to perform i . which the public is interested The
 business, therefor, is affected with pull
 lie interest within the meaning of til
 doctrine which Lord Hale has so forcibl ', stated. But We need not go furthe
 Enough has already been said to sho : that when private property is devoted !; pubic use, 1t is subject to public regul Y tio1.
 In the case Of the Chicago, Burl,nett d. ls Quincy Railroad Co. vs Iowa, wii, O. suit was brought to test the power of u e. legislature to regulate the maximum ra at of freights and fares, the supreme cou he of the United States held:
 hd ''l. Railroad companies are carries f It. hire. Engaged in a public employme in affecting the public interest, they are, u m less protected by their charters, subje to legislative control as to their rates no fare and freight.
 it. 2. The Burlington and Missouri Riv
 Railroad Company has, within the sco
 of the authority conferred by it's chart, an and subject to the limitations thereby i ,L posed, the power of natural person VI" make contracts in reference to its bu m- ness. Like such, it, or it's assignee, t ,he plaintiff in error, is, under the same c to cumstances, subject at all times to su r;Il laws as the general assembly of the St; may from time to time enact.