Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-08-13
Regulating Railroads.

Associate Justice Brewer of the United
States supreme court. in deciding the
Omaha bridge case and the issue between
the roads in interest. covered some interest
ing problems regarding the control of rail
roads. In discussing the question whether
court of equity may compel specific per-
Torrance of contract he said:
l know, to one who is only familiar with
the narrow limits and the strict lines within
and along which courts of law proceed, the
act of q court of equity i'll taking possession
of contract running for 999 years. and de-
creeing its specific performance through all
those years, seems strange exercise of
power; but | believe most thoroughly that
the powers of court Of equity are as vast
and its processes and procedure as elastic
as all the changing emergencies of increas-
ingly complex business relations and the
protection of rights Can demand. They are
potent TO protect the humblest individual
from the oppression of the mightiest cor
pOration: to protect every corporation from
the destroying greed of the public; to stop
state o. naLion from Spoliating or destroy
ing private rights; to grasp with strong
hand every corporation and compel it TO
perform its contracts of every nature and
do justice to every individual.
May be permitted to make another sug-
gestion2 The railroad world to-day is in
unrest Millions of capital have gone into
railroad enterprises, seeking profit there
from. Legislators vie with Legislators in
efforts to reduce rates. To maintain such
rates as Will secure just compensation for
the capital invested railroads enter into as
sociations and form traffic contracts. But
such contracts seem but ropes OF sand, and
such associations but gilded fgureheads
and not controlling forces. And back of all
is wide and growing demand that the gov
eminent take possession of all the railroads
and itself become the great common car
rier Is it not possible that the powers of
a court of equity may yet be found ade-
quate 10 the situation-that such courts
may yet lay strong hands upon these rail-
road corporations, and by compelling per-
Torrance of contracts secure stability, uni
formity and justice TO all, and thus quiet
the clamor and avoid any necessity of gov
ornamental possession and management?
If this contract had not been made, or if
il should not now be enforced, two or three
millions at least of additional capital would
be put into railroad and bridge construction,
and such an expenditure of money places an
additional burden upon the public. Every
unnecessary mile of railroad track or
bridge that is built adds to the cost of
trans ortation, and surely the public is in
terested in seeing that that cost be as light
as possible.
\ very serious economic and political
question is whether this free country has
not made mistake in giving too large lib
erty of railroad construction. Take a sir
gle illustration: In the state of Colorado
between Pueblo and Denver are three indie
pendent lines of road, with separate and
distinct tracks and rights of way. To say
nothing of the waste of Kinds and the injury
to farms, the cost of these three lines of
road, l am assured, is much more than
double that of a single right of way with
two tracks; and such single right of way
would be adequate for all the business that
the three roads have done or are likely to
do for many years. The public which uses
these roads bears the burden of this extra
cost Would not its interests have been
promoted if by contract or law all these
railroads could have been compelled to
unite in a single line2 So here-if the pub
lie can prevent an increase of railroad prop
erty by the sum of 100000 or $1,000, 900,
it saves to itself the burden which that ad-
ditional expense would cast upon it. Fur
Their, q new line running into Omaha cuts
up and destroys unnecessarily a large
amount of property. So in this, as in the
case of Joy VS.. st. Louis, there is a public
interest at stake which ,iustlfes the inter-
vention of a court OF equity.