The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1890-06-26
"THE RAILROAD COMMIS-
SION AND CHARTERED
RIGHTS"


ed in the State ChroniCle lie in the
issue OF Feb. 22nd, 1889. The
argument contained in it has
never been answered aud we
believe Is unanswerable. In
fact the article has the endorse
ment and backing Of Il half a
dozen Of the ablest lawyers who
are not itailroad attorneys, in
North Carolina. Read it and
see if it does not brush away
all the stuff about "chartered
and vested rights that Raj
road attorneys harp on.
Col. Hinsdale's article publish
ed in to days Chronicle main
tainiEg that certain Railroads
in this State will not be subject
to the supervision of a Railroad
Commission by reason Of pro
visions in their charter is moro
plausible tran sound, and will
not deter the members of the
present General Assembly,
charged with grave responsible
lily, from performing an i'm
portant public duty.
1t will strike the average
man as rather strange that the
argument proceeds from a
source (Co'. Hinsdale is attorney
for the Raleigh and CASTOR and
Raleigh and Agusta Railroads.
interested in the roads fol which
the exemption is claimed, and
which would rather have the
advantage of the other roads in
the State if the position were
we'll taken. 1t is still more
unfortunate for the writer that
the very decision of the Supreme
Court Of the United States up
on which he relies-the Georgia
Railroad and Banking Co, VS.
Smith ct ais in favor of the
Railroad Commission and a.
gainst the road claiming ex-
emption. And we are asked to
infer that in our. own roads the
decision would be differ ent.
In the Georgia case the char
ter after granting to tie Rail
road company the exclusive
right to convey and transport
persons and merchandise, pro
vides that the charge for such
transportation shall not exceed
somuch per hundred pounds
etc. In the charter of the Will
mington and Weldon r. R. Co.,
(the old Wilmington and Ralei-
gh Road, after granting the
same exclusive right Of transpor
tation and the power to erect
toll gates etc, the company is
permitted to charge and receive
"not to exceed the following
rates" and the exact language is
as follows; "and they shall be
entitled to receive and demand
the following rates, to-wit; not
exceeding 1 cents per mile for
transportation per ton Of 1000
pounds" a careful perusal
of the entire section will lead
any impair ial mind to the con-
clus;on that the grant in each
case was Intended to confer,
and does confer the same privi-
leges and nothing more-that is
the right to charge for trans
portatiOn, and fixes the maxi
mum rates, leaving the regula-
ton OF charges within those
rates subject to legislative con-
troll.
Now in the Georgia charter,
the Supreme court says in the
case relied upon by Col. Hins-
dale:
"It would require much
clearer language than this to
justify us in holding that, not
withstanding any altered CON
dltions of the country in the
future, the Legislature had in
1888 contracted that the com
pany might for all time charge
rates for transportation of per
sons and property over ITS line
up to the limits there designat-
ed. 1t is conceded that rail
road corporation is a private
corporation though its uses are
public, and that a contract ELL
bodied in terms in it's provisions
or necessarily implied by them
is within the constitutional
clause prohibiting legislation
impairing the obligation OF
contracts. IF the charter in
this way provides that the
charges which the company
may make for its services il
the transportation of persons
aud property shall be subject
only to its OWL control up to
the limit designated, exemption
from legislative interference
within that limit will be main
tanned. But to effect this re-
suit, the exemption must ap
pear by such clear and unmis
taxable language that it canno'
be reasonably construed con.
SiStently with the reservation