The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1890-02-14

the gram rom the producer ana Dy
this system there has grown up an
absolute monopoly of the grain
trade of the state; and the owners OF
the elevators, chosen by the railroad
company, in connection with the
railroad companies, have the abso-
lutte control OF the grain trade; and
no one can ship grain over a railroad
company owning line of road over
which he wishes to ship.
A railroad company is a common
carrier. "a common carrier is in the
exercise of a sort OF a public Office"
N. j. Steam Nav. Co., VS.. Merchants
Bank, 6 How. 3S1.
Stanford vs.. Railroad Co., 24th,
Penn. $50.
Coggs, VS.. Bernard 2 Lord Ray
mOnd 900.
''The common carrier" exercises a
public employment"
"The right to build and operate
a railroad, and to charge and take
tolls. is a prerogative, granted by
the state"
"Public utility is the consideration
for such grant,
"Although in the hands of pri-
vate corporation it is a sovereign
franchise, and must be treated as
SUCH"
ct must be held in trust for the
general good"
I'm the use OF such franchise, all
citizens have an equal interest and
equal rights; and all must, under the
same circumstances, he treated alike,
without unjust discrimination"
State of Nebraska vs.. Republican
Valley Railway Company, II Neb.
AZ.
The obligation OF a common car
rier is to receive and carry goods
for all persons alike, without unjust
discrimination as to terms; and to
deliver them in safety to the con-
signee, unless prevented by the act
of God or the public enemy
These obligations grew out of the
relation voluntarily assumed by the
carrier toward the public, and the re-
quirements OF public policy and SO
important have they been deemed
that eminent judges have expressed
their regret that common carriers
have been permitted to vary their
common law obligation, even by
special contract with the owner OF
the goods.
) In England a contract which adj
mitted to the door OF station with
in the yard of a railway Company, a
certain omnibus, and excluded an.
other, was held void.
Marriott VS.. D. & S. ". X. X. Co.
81 Eng. Com. Law, 1913.
In CASTOR VS.. Bristol 4 Exeter Ry
Co., 95 Eng. Com. Law GAL, it was
held: That a contract with certain
Iron Mongers to carry their freight
for a less price than charged the pub
lie was illegal, no good reason fol
the discrimination being shown.
In Couch VS.. l.. & N. w. Ry Co.
TS Eng. Com. Law 254, it was held
A railway company could not MAKE
a regulation for the conveyance o
goods which, in practice affected ON
) individual only.
In Sanford VS.. Railroad Co., oath
, Pa. 80, the Court held that the power
3 given in the charter of a railroad
company to regulate the transporta
{ tion OF the road, did not give tn
right to grant exclusive privileges tt
l "a particular Express Company. Tn
Court says, "If the company possessed
this power, it might build up one Sc
3 of men and iepress others, advanc
, one kind of business and break dow
another; and make even Religion
and Politics the test in the distribu
E tion of it's favors."
1.-The rights of the people are no
subject to any such corporate con
troll"
l 1t was provided in the charter il
5 the railroad company above referred
a to, that the company ''shall be re
e quired to transport to the termina
: ton of said railroad, or to any othe
point on said railroad, in the orde
in which they, their officers, AM
= agents shall be requested to trans
: port the same, all goods, wares
: materials and merchandise, or othe
: articles which shall have been depos
tied at the company's depots, or con
venient to the same, so that equa
:, and impartial justice shall be don
to all owners of property by the sai'
l. company, who shall pay or tender tt
the officers of the company the tol
n and freight due under the act, OF
8 goods, ware materials and merchan
# disc or other articles which they ma,
wish transported
t The special stipulations inserted il
J. charters for the purpose of securin,
t these rights are placed there il
r abundance of caution; and affirm
r nothing more than the rights t,
! equal justice which exists independ
D emit of such provisions
= The supposed necessity for sucl
= ~, oh n r%ovc, <,.~o - x1 -, Al: