Telegram-herald., 1891-03-08

t&sN& t- fAtAt - - S&tA+t - N4 ti--r i4--t4s
hAs attracted sosae Asteaeoa H. sh@
cklaioa RAAss& siosh "a lh4s 49, :.
sBs dsc.ss0as og ihe Usle5 seAtss
eupTsns besTinx ea "a 80 fest AS
estsd. Iae pfpsel9 "a. ~ ais 8 sssT ..sas8
u saea u taose cesss AZ a. fo.-sss.
IA Auua - ihno.s. - as tie
court aveldsd sl4t private prog af
devoted pusie use 5 sutj g. - sase
i.c fsgu 2Eloa, sni tRe r.,..t - ssta1-
llsh ns1smgm eh4rg =, ~ iaa ea10a
0oe VI tie mfS of FeEaialca; ta4.
ffom tine imIaem0rAl % ass 0sea
/ Customary for thv Lex stature % * s
alaxlmum eaafge, eey0a1 wulea 4ay
charge made woud be aagvss ,sisble.
that ios protection against the abuse oK
such power eY the Legislature tie pso-
! pc mast gvseg. 90 tae polls AL aol tae
courts, ana tn7t wna. : reasoe4D.e - a
leg slatlys aad a0t a judicial quespoa.
IL Cnieaso. Burlington and Quincy
Y. Iowa. "a 4 ;. l55, The coart sad
taaL "A the absence of legislation as O.
reasonable charges, courts must dec.ds,
out, when the legislature prescT-oes
maximum charges. lt operates on cor
poratons as on individuals. Railroads
are engaged ln q public employment
affecting public inrerests, aad are sub
I jscsto lex s.atlge coniro. As @ rates.
In Pei< y. ca ago * Northwestern.
I 81 Y. ), l64, the court held that the
lmit nxeo " the Legislature binds tae
courts as well as the people. II lm-
/ properly hzed the Legislature and not
the courts must be appealed 70.
la Chicago, Milwaukee < 81. Paul V.
Ackley, o. {. :. 10, the question pre-
sented was whether Wisconsin road
! could recover more than the maximum
charges liked by the Legislature. by
showing that the amount charged was
no more than reasonable IL was de-
clded that the limit of recovery is the
maximum rates prescribed by the Legs
laiure.
In Ruggles v. Illinois, l0S L. s., 526.
it WAS claimed that. as the amendment
of 1882 ID the c., b. & .. charter in ILL.,
noIs gave the railroad company power
to make bylaws, and through them to
establish rates, 1t was released from the
restriction TO 3 cents per mile imposed
by the general law under which the
company was originally organized. The
court held that the amendment in no.
wise released the company from leglsla-
tive control.
In Stone v. Trust Co., lie U. S. 307, it
was sought TO enjoin the enforcement
against the Mobile & Ohio road, of the
Act OF the Mississippi Legislature Great
ing q commission with authority to re-
wise tariffs after investigation and
determine rates; its determination to
be received by the courts as prima facie
evidence that such determination was
right and proper. The injunction was
refused. The court cited tue Illinois
and Iowa cases, mentioned above, as
determining the power of the LegislA-
ture TO fix minimum rates. But in
Chief Justice Waite's opinion occurs
the following language, which scarcely
comedies with the other decisions:
This power to regulate Is not power
to destroy, and limitation is not the
| equivalent OF contiscation. Under pre-
tense of regulating fares and freights
the State can not require railroad cor
porations TO carry persons and property
| without reward; neither can 1t do that
| which in law amounts TO taking of
private property for public use without
just compensation and without due
| process of law"
In Dow V. Beide.man, l25 L. s. $50,
the trustees IN possession of the Mem
pms and Little Rock road were sued
for charging more than the maximum
rate OF cents per mic fixed by the Ar
kansas Legislature in 1857. In defence
the showing was made that the effect
of the maximum rates would be to re.
Guce the net income of the road from
sl62 900 to SIS, 900, or about II per
cent. on its cost. This was claimed 10
De practical contiscation and taking
private property for public use without
due compensation. Although char
tered IN 1888. the company had been
reorgan ized IN 1877, becoming subject
then 10 existing laws, and the cour.
said that IN the absence CT proof as to
the amount invested by the new cor.
poration In the property 1t had no
means, even Il 1t had the power, to de.
termine that the maximum rate was
Unreasonable, or that there was any
such confiscation "a wss claimed.
| In Georgla Railroad and Banking Co.
V. Smith. l2s L. :. Ia, that company
sought to avoid the operation of an act
of the Georgia Legislature of 1874
| creating a commission to fx max mum
rates. on tue ground that n section OF
ifs charter Of 1888 provided shat charges
| should not exceed rates on frelgh;s
wnrch were specified and Ave cents PCT
mie for passengers. The question was
whether toe pFoviso bad tae effect to
relieve tae road from the operation Of
the n1sximhm rates law. Is was de.
eidsd that the proviso did not have
such effect.
IN the Minnesota case. decided year
| - - --.,-4.4 -. n ~-~~.-. r.