The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-08
The Railroad CommissiOn-The Out
look.
Charleston. South Carolina. News and Cou-
rier.


charleston. South Carolina. News and C0r-
rier.
The railroad commissioners APP
pointed under the act passed aJ the
last session of the state legislature
Justify, by their conduct, the conf.
dence which the public were disposed
TO place in them. Instead of being
revolutionary body, OF being blown to
and fro by the breeZes of popular opin-
ion, as the opponents of the railroad
law insisted that they would and
must be, the commissioners have gone
quietly to work TO obtain such infor-
nation as will enable them to act ju-
diciously, and III such manner as will
help the public without injuring the
railroad companies. We believe that
this can be done, because we cannot
admit that it is necessary to the profit
able existence of any well-conducted
corporation that its prosperity should
denote the extent of its victory over
the interests and wishes of those who
had no choice save To be its customers.
Every day the determination TO re-
p the exercise of arbitrary power
n railroad companies becomes
i39Fe strong, and finds a clearer eX-
position in the DEGREES and Judge
mentS of the courts. IL had been
established in the decisions in the
Granger cases" that the state had
the right to supervise the manage
ment Of railroad companies, but 4
decision has just been rendered by the
supreme court of the state of New
York which goes further, we think,
than any previous decision on the
subject. 1t is broader in its scope
and more definite in it's terms than
the preceding decisions relating to the
same matters. The New York court
holds that railroads are public high
ways, over which the direct authority
OF the state is, OF should be, continu-
ously exercised; and that the COM
panies hold a trust for the
performances of public duties.
Judge Davis in delivering the opinion
Of the court, said: Railroads are in
every essential quality public high
ways, created for public use, but per-
United to be owned, controlled and
managed by private persons" Their
construction depended upon an exer-
else of the right of eminent domain,
which belongs to the state alone, and
cannot be conferred except upon a
public u.s." The fact that a private
corporation is permitted to construct,
own and manage the road in no sense
divests it of its public character or
sewers the authority of the state over
its use. The general and popular
use" of railroad is handed over to
corporate management and control
simply because that is regarded as the
best and most advantageous method
of securing its effective operation.
The corporation in accepting the
trust of constructing, equipping
and managing public high
way becomes an agency OF
the state to perform public func-
tions which might otherwise devolve
upon public officers" The exclusive
character of the privileges granted to
the corporations and of the duties i'm
posed upon it, puts that corporation
under the obligation to carry all per-
sons and property, within the scope of
its charter, as public trust which it
has accepted. This statement was in
tended to furnish the ground for the
conclusion that the state can compel a
railroad company which has accepted
trust from the state to perform the
functions which it thereby assumes.
But it also clearly reveals the founda-
-tiese e6ffsSsshe states right to require the
management Of a ffsasi lroad to be sub
servient to the general purpose Of Of is
creation. The state establishes a
highway primarily for the use and
benefit Of the people, and not for the
profit OF the corporation to which its
management is intrusted. 1t
is its right and its duty to see
that the use of that highway is open
to the enjoyment Of the public on
just and equal terms for all. II must
have the power to enforce such regu-
lations as are necessary to secure this
result, and how far it shall use that
power is to be determined by the
necessities of tho case. The duty to
carry passengers and freight. says
Judge Davis, is the ultima ratio" of
the existence of railroads, 1.-The great
and sole public good. for the attain
ment and accomplishment of which
all other powers and duties are given
and imposed" and IL is strangely IL
logical to assert that the state through
the courts may compel the perform
ance of every step necessary to bring
IA corpOration into a condition of read
mess to do the very thing it is created
to do, but it is then powerless to COM
pei the doing of the thing itself. In
answer to the point that injured per-
sons have redress in suits for damages
and that the state itself
suffers no direct injury, he takes the
high ground that the state is injured
in its sovereignty whenever any
public function vested in any person,
natural or artificial. for the public
good is not used or is misued or is
abusedp Its only remedy lies in its
sovereign power to compel the use or
to prevent the misuse or abuse.
We cite this opinion SO prominent
ly because of the disposition among
interested persons in South Carolina
to press the view that railroad corpo-
ratiOns are sovereign, and cannot be
interfered with or restrained, except
where specific injury to individuals
shall have been proved. The law is
broader and more generous than
this. To the railroad companies
enormous psivileges and extensive
rights are given, but these privileges
and rights are conferred for the
public benefit as much as to af-
ford an opportunity of profit to the
owners of the railroads. 1t is not con-
templated by the law that the inter-
est of the companies and of the pub
lie shall be in opposition to each
other. Whenever this shall happen,
it is evident that the companies or the
public have gone beyond bounds, and
that one of them has, in some sense,
violated the inherent rights Of the
other.
We return to the South Carolina
railroad commission. 1t is gratifying
to note that the commissioners have
consulted freely with the Georgia
commission. This conference has a
deeper meaning, we think, than is
usually supposed. 1t does not mean
merely that the South Carolina COM
missioners desire Il know what the
Georgia commissioners have done, and
how they have done it, but 1T means
that Georgia and South Carolina are
disposed to cooperate in railroad mat
tiers, so that the two states, by common
action, shall have absolute control,
under the law, of the lines Of rail-
road in the.two states. 1t is difficult
to say at this moment how far the
railroad commissioners of one state
can affect by their action the charges
upon so much of line of railroad as
Is outside of the borders of that state,
and it is argued, for this reason, that
no complete control of the railroads
can be given by any other legislation
that that of the United States in con-
gress. But it is evident that, where
railroads begin ana end within two