Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-01-23
THE GREAT SUPREME eOUkT RAIL.
WAY DECISION.

Il AhC NCOiSAOl VI LhC oupiGbiC SOuIt 1871
week stating that the railroads are not the
masters but the servants of the public, is
receiving general attention, and is usually
welcomed as just. Railroad papers natural
| ly express discontent at the long assumption
Of power usurped by so many Of the rail-
way managers being overturned. When the
| Euglish Duke eff Newcastle of fifty years
| ago was reproached for turning out whole
sale large number OF his tenants for voting
in opposition to his wishes, he said: "Hss
not a man a right to do as he likes with his
own% In this spirit too many Of The rail-
rosds have acted, imposing Determinations
and extortion in contempt of justice and in
violation OF the interests of the public that
public which one of their magnates
recently so heartily, SO arrogantly, and con-
temptuously id. The decision OF the
Supreme Court lays the ak 10 the root of the
tree Of railroad assumption, and it will be
laid low. The chief value Of the decision
lies 10 its clear and authoritative statement
as TO the nature Of the cooperative and State
| relations. Much of the controversy as to
| the right Of the State 10 regulate railway
| operations is settled By this decision. Against
the claim that a man may do what he likes
| with his OVID, the decision declares that a
railroad is not corporation's own, in the
sense in which grocer owns his stock, or a
manufacturer his machinery. The roads are
public highways, and the State can regulate
traffic upon them, and the companies hold
them in trust for the performance of
public duties, and therefore must con-
form to the regulations necessary to secure
discharge Of the functions delegated TO
them. Judicial decisions have been sp-
prosching this point all along, and now it is
clearly decided The. New York railroad
that refused the freight-hsndlers a trifiing
advance they asked upon their wages, and
which the public declared TO be just aud
proper demand, and stood earnestly by the
under.paid men--little thought that go
strong a declaration leveled against their
usurped authority would be the result The
Supreme Court decision says that Grail
roads are, in every essential quality, high
ways. created for public use, bat permitted
10 be owned, controlled and managed by
private persons. Their construction de-
ponds upon an exercise OF the right OF emf
nent domsiu, right which belongs 10 tie
State alone, and which cannot be con-
ferrsd except upon a public iiss.N That
corporations msy -eanslrnct. own and n, ansge
= road does moi divest the road OF ia ,ilbIie
character, nor does it sever the authority oil
the State over its use. The corporation is
used as an instrument of State service merely
as a convenient way of carrying out pub
lie object. The corporation accepting tie
trust and enjoying the privileges accorded,
"bscOmes an agency Of the State to perform
public functions which saigh. otherwise de-
volve upon public Offices" The exclusive
character OF the privileges and the duties
imposed obligates the carrying Of all persons
and property within the scope OF the chs rier,
as a public trust which IL has accepted. The
State establishes a highway, not for the pur-
pose Of beneffing corporation, but to serve
the interests and convenience OF the peo-
pie, and its enjoyment must be open
to all on Just and equal terms, ard
the State must have powers 10 secure this
result. The duty to carry passengers and
freight is the moving reason of the existence
of railroads. This, the decision says, is
"the great and sole public good for the at
tainment and Accomplishments Of which all
other powers are given and uties posed;y
and, further, sit is strangely Illogical to as
sert that the State, through the courts,
may compel the performance of every step
necessary to bring a corporation into a con-
dition of readiness to do the very thing il is
created TO do, but it is then powerless 10
compel the doing OF the thing itself" This
irresistible. But may not Individuals in.
jured by the corporations obtain redress By
suits for damages, as the State itself suffers
no direct injury? In reply the decision de-
clares that the State i, injured in its GOV.
ereigHty whenever any public function,
VESTED in any person, natural or arti- |
hcial, for the public good, is not
used, or is misused, or is abused ("
40 Ohsy ACASuy iAro It's bONoICISu
power to compel the use, or to prevent the
misuse or abuse. This principle has wider |
application than is involved in this particu- |
lar case, in which 3 strike of workmen is
alleged as reason for nou-p.rformancs of |
duty. The court says the strike being law
fol act lawfully carried out, the excuse "has |
no validity in law" The dulles imposed
must be discharged at whatever cost. They
cannot be laid down or abandoned, or sus-
pended, without the legally expressed con-
sent of the State" Upon this decision the |
New York Times remarks: "The doctrine of |
The entire decision is most wholesome and |
plainly in the interest Of public right, and |
it's authoritative exposition will hasten the |
time when no Judge will venture to nuddle |
the law in order to relieve corporations from |
Iba reanans;h;l;t;an ,uh;ak Il