The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-01
IMPORTANT DATA.
Railroad Documents Of Interest 10 the
Public.
Decision OF the Supreme Court OF
Georgia
As 10 the Commissions Power.

Few documents reach the Newspaper edl.
tor that are Of greater present interest 10 "A
large portion of the American people than
the annual reports Of the Georgia railroad
commission. That body ~ endowed with
great powers, and the commissioners have
used those without lear or favor when called
npon TO do So There IL much discussion
lust now as 10 whether railroad commits
rionors should be mere advisory bodies, or
should be Invested with executive author
ity, and us to whether II IN desirable that
congress should pass the Reagan or
some other bill for the regulation OF
Interstate railroad traffic. Al such
time the workings OF the Georgia com
mission system becomes Of importance, rs
aiding TO solve the question whether Il Is
better ~ leave the roads aud The public ~
settle disputes arising between them Us Vel
as they can. aided by ssch rNisting prOv's.
Ions OF the law rs are applicable 30 them, or
whether u body oil commissioners should be
provided whose seton shall oe unenoum-
bered with heavy legal expenses and un.
yexed by legal delays. We have just 70.
ceivcd n copy OF the combined seventh and
ei ghth semi annual reports OF the Georgia
railroad commits siOnofs, Messrs. j. Nj.
smith Campbell Wallace aud l.. N. Tram.
mel. The most important matter men
toned Is the decision OF the supreme
court Of Georgia as To the power OF the
road and Banking company questioned
and referred to the copri. The decision
was In favor OF the commission. The plain.
tiif acquiesced Ia the decision and has con.
formed to he rules and regulations OF the
com mission on the points in dispute, and
Is now apply ing the same 10 the business
of their road. The plaintiff Objected that
the act creating the commission Is uncon.
stitutonal and sold. IL was also claimed
that the charter of the company Is con-
tract with the state, and gives power TO
charge any rate for freight or passage up TO
| the limit mentioned in the charter. The
court decided that the legislature has an-
thoriIy to regulate rates and TO prevent un.
| lust d scriminations; the act creating the
commiss on WAS passed for these purpoes.
| The constitution gives the legislature
power to regulate rates and TO pass laws In
pursuance of that duty, the object is TO
preserve the citiznes against unjust
| rates and determinations The laws
passed must have executive Offices, and the
legislature can confer the necessary pow.
ers. The law cannot prescribe an invaria-
| bic schedule Of rates for what would be IN
| inst at another. The act creating the
Georgia commission IL neither uuconstitu.
rienal nor void The charter OF the road
fixes "A limit beyond which the road shall
not charge. Charters granting exclusive
privileges must be strictly cons fued, and
what il not expressly given or necessarily
Implied IS withheld. Chief Justice Black
| Railroad company, page ~ oi ST. Louis
| Rep. 800, decides that u corporation can do
what IL authorized by its charter, beg oud
that all its acts are illegal, nothing can be
proved or disproved by inierentnl reason.
ing. II certain privileges are claimed,
ihe words of the Legislature comforting
them must be shown, for doubtful
cnarter does not exist Fertilizer COM
pany vs. Hyde Park. 07 United States, $50,
saws every reasonable doubt Is 10 be taken
adversely the affirmative must be shown,
| for silence is negative aud doubt is fatal TO
the claim. In the present case the state
agrees that the com pany may build roId
spd have exclusive use OF II rs long rs n
com plies with the conditions of It's charter.
Tue state did not guarantee the company
the exclusive right 10 charge the full
amount of The rates. bat that II should not
exceed them. The sIaie has power TO regu-
late rates unless that right is not already
parted with in granting charters, and
such parting with must amount 10
an absolute contract; sucn an agreement
cannot be implied. No such contract In
words Is iounu in the charter in the present
case, giving TO the company hbsolute riRht
to regulate It's rates, or to guarantee the
right no to / maximum mentioned. The
State stipulated Oh certain terms not TO IN
terfere with the company's exclusive right
of transportation. This was all IL no.
where stipulates not to interfere with its
rates. 1t Is claimed that the proviso makes
a contract. bnt to do that "it wonld be nee
essary-io insert words therein which are not
used, and 10 make covenant in which no
words ofcovenant appear" the cons'rur-
ton the plaintiff cOnleucs 'or IS unauihor-
lied and yiolatve ct the rues rs TO
what Constitutes the usual Office oil
a proviso In conclusion the court
holds the act OF the legislature TO ue con-
situtional and the orders OF The commits
sion to be valid and bindiug, bn, their pow
ers are not unlimited or beyord the proper
control of the state au no ties. IL the COM
plairant had showed violation OF The
chartered rights of the company II woud
have been the duty Of the court 3, restrain
and epjon the commissioners. This decis
ion and the grounds Of II deserve attention
in this stale, a.. durlns HE l.'t session OF
the legislature, much mistaken opinion as
to railroad law and state charters being
contracts between two equal parties .ss
expressed aud received. and further acliop
grounded upon more correct views may YET
have 10 be adopted by the state OF Tonnes
Memphis Appeal.
STREET sTRAWs.