The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-22
Duties of Railway Corporations.

mrnt of freight was seriously OBJ
structed, much to the Inconvenience
and loss of shippers. Attorney Gen
erll Russell was appealed To for aid,
AMI suits We're brought by HIM for Il
To compel the railroads
loing business in this city to receive
and deliver with due diligence all
freight Offered for transportation. y
hearing was had before Justice
Haight, who sustained the objections
Of the railway companies counsel and
lenied the attorney generals applica-
ton.
An appeal was made, resulting in a
notable decision of the general term
Of the supreme court, rendered Janu-
lry IL, reversing the decision of JUS
,ice Haight. The general term was
composed of Justices Davis, Daniels
lnd Brady, and the opinion was writ
ten 10y Justice Brady.
That portion of the opinion relating
to the duties of railway corpora
tionS rs common carriers is of the
highest possible interest and impor-
lance, since it settles the question
whether the people of the state can
invoke the power of the courts to
compel the railway companies to per-
form their most useful public func-
lions.
Speaking of the nature of railway
the objects for which
they are created, the powers conferred,
and the duties imposed upon them by
the laws of their creation and of the
state. Justice Davis said:
.. hn1ial fhnir
ship may be. and usually is, alto
gether private, belonging to the hold
ers of their capital stock, and their
may be vested in such
officers and agents as the stock
holders and directors under the
provisions of the law may APP
point. In this SENSE they are
to be regarded as trading or private
having in.view the pro-
lii or advantage of the corporatOrs.
But these conditions are in no just
sense in conflict with their obligations
and duties to the public. The objects
of their creation are from their very
nature largely different from those of
ordinary private and trading corpora
tiOns. Railroads are i'll every essential
quality public highways. created for
public use, but permitted to be own
ed, controlled and managed by private
persons. But for this quality the rail-
roads of the respondent could not law
fully exist. Their construction de
pended upon the exercise of the right
OF eminent domain. which belongs to
the state in its corporate capacity
alone. and cannot be conferred except
upon IL public use The state has no
power to grant the right of eminent
domain to any corporation or person
for other than q public use. Every
attempt to 20 beyond that is void by
the constitution, and although the
leg stature may determine what is a
Necessary public use, it cannot by any
sort of enactment diveSt of that char
acter any portion of the right of emf
nent domain which it may confer.
This characteristic of public use is
in no SENSE lost or diminished by the
fact that the use of the railroad by
the corporation which constructs or
owns it must from its nature be eX-
elusive. That incident grows out of
the method OF use, which does not adj
NIT of any enjoyment in common by
tilt punt. Liz SSLCAtu anu pOPulsti
use of railroad as highway is
therefore handed over exclusively to
management and control,
because that is for the best and mani
fest advantage of the public. The
progress of science and skill has
shown that highways may be created
for public use of such form and kind
that the best and most advantageous
enjoyment by the public can only be
secured through the ownership, man.
agement and control of corporate
bodies created for that purpose, and
the people of the state are not re-
stricted from availing themselves of
the best modes for the carriage of
their persons and property"
After showing how under the gen.
eral railroad act every railway corpor-
alton, by accepting the trust imposed
upon it, becomes an agency of the
state to perform public functions,
and citing number OF decisions in
which it had been held that railroads
could be compelled by ,mandamus to
perform certain express and implied
obligations arising from their char
terS, the court described the duty of
carrying freight and passengers as
the ultimate ratio of railway compa-
MES existence. the great and sole pub
lie good, for the attainment
and accomplishment of which all
the other powers and duties are,
given or imposed; and declared it
illogical to assert that the
state. through the courts, may COM
pei the performance of every step nee
esSary to bring corporation into a
of readiness to do the very
hing it is created to do, but it is then
powerless to compel the doing of the
hing itself.
Touching the excuse of the railway
that their freight handlers
had refused to work for Il cents an
hour, demanding 20 cents, and that
the unskilled men who were employed
TO do the work were incompetent,
md so caused the neglect and refusal
of, Justice Davis held,
that while both parties
had the legal right to differ
rs to the proper amount of pay
Tor the work to be done. the
did not have the right to hold
10 their decision to the injury of the
public. IF the consequence of doing
30 were an inability to exercise their
franchise, To the great in
Jury of the public, they cannot be
heard to assert that such consequence
must be shouldered and borne by an
innocent public who neither directly
nor indirectly participated in their
,auses."
In other words, the railway corpo-
'ations cannot refuse or neglect to
perform their public duties, upon
my controversy with their employees
over the expense OF doing them. "rhe
luties imposed must be discharged at
cost. They cannot be laid
Town, or abandoned, OF suspended.
without the legally expressed consent
If the state. The trusts are active.
potential and imperative, and must
De executed until lawfully surren-
Tered; Otherwise a public highway of
great utility is closed or INSTRUCTED
any process recognized by
ava. This is something no public
,fficer charged with the same trusts
md duties in regard to other public
highways can do without subjecting
himself to mandamus or indictment"
A statement prepared by the COM