New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1892-10-26

side Of the street because they did not
4 touch their land. The practical in
justice OF this is evident, for usually
/ the property was damaged as much
on one side Of the street as on the
other But one court held IN the
Adams case SO Mimi, 2S6-that
an abuttlng property owner had
property rights in the street to iitsfull
width, for purposes of access, light,
air, ETC., and that q company which
built It's road IN a street must pay
compensation to the property own
ers on both sides OF the street.
| 1t IS well known that some of the
1 companies failed to fence theirroadsa as
| required by law, on the idea that they
We're only liable for stock. killed, and
| that it was cheaper to pay for this
than to build fences. Where a road
| ran through farm the value Of the
stock killed would often be a small
part of the loss to the owner result
ing from q failure to fence the road.
The absence offences would naturally
render the farm less convenient and
| valuable for use. The railroad com
panies, however, denied their liabili-
ties for any such injury. But in
Emmons vs.. M. q st, Z. r. company
.35 Mimi sos and Nelson VS.. same IL
Mimi l31 the court held that railway
companies were liable for damages
for injury to farm by reason OF it
being rendered less valuable for use
in consequence OF a failure to fence
| their railroads. These equitable de-
cisions have generally brought the
companies to time andi compelled
them to comply with a law requiring
them to fence the roads.
Upon the great question of the
power Of the state to regulate the
| charges OF railway companies for
the transportation Of passengers and
| freight, the Supreme Court Of the State
in the celebrated ''milk CASE SO Mimi.
%, held that what are reasonable
rates was a1legislative and not q iu-
1 dicial question, that the legislature
either directly or through commits
sion had the absolute right to deter
mine what rates were reasonable and
that such determination was final and
conclusive, that the only protection
OF railroad companies against wrong
or injustice in the regulation of rates
wasto the good faith of thepeop pie and
the wisdom aad impartiality of the leg
| islature.
It is true that the Supreme Court OF
the United States, virtually .overruling
their own former decisions, reversed
the decision Of our court, but for this
the latter is certainly not responsible.
| In this day Of innumerable corpora
tions organized for all conceivable
purposes, the public, as q rule, have
little or no knowledge OF the financial
responsibility OF corporations. They
usually deal with it in re-
lance upon the integrity and
financial standing of it's stockholders
/ If these stockholders are not per-
| sonally responsible those trusting the
company would often find that they
1 had given credit to shadow without
s'Meagher' cases-5O N. w. Rep.
| lilo and 1114-the court held that
in all corporations, not exclusively
manufacturing, the stockholders
were personally liable for the debts Of
the corporation to the amount of the
stock owned or held by them, and
that the provision of the constitution
on the subject, commonly called "the
double liability clause was self exc
cutting thus placing this protection to
those dealing with corporations
above and beyond the reach of mere
legislative control.
| This review of the decision OF the
| supreme court might be extended in
definitely, but the foregoing is enough
to show that upon all subjects in
volving questions of general policy
affecting the relations OF corporations
and the public, the court has always
| had due regard to the interests Of the
latter while not unmindful of the legal
rights Of the former; and that4th at
tack on the court by two Or three
lawyers, actuated by their defeat in
some OF their speculative suits, is ut
| terly without foundation.
! There is another view also that can
be taken Of this subject. The average
man too often. confounds the judicial
with the legislation powers of the
state. Courts are created to interpret
4 and not to make the laws by which
both people and corporations are gov
erned. II law is unjust or tyranni-
cal it is, the legislative and not the ju-
dicial powers that are responsible. It
Is OtUen WITH supreme IerreG JlaU a.
/ judicial officer renders decision that
his conscience tells him is wrong in the
abstract and in the concrete. But
his function is merely to interpret a.
law that has been made; and q
just judge will always do this. Here
his responsibility ceases In render
ing the decision, and thus calling at
tention to an iniquitous statute, he
has done his full share. towards it's
repeal. It's for the legislature to do
| the rest.
The three judges who are upon the
republican ticket as candidates for
reelection, have served upon the SUI
preme bench, each one Of them for
more than ten years. They
are everywhere recognized as men
of the highest nobility, character and
reputation. Is it wise to unseat
them at the demand OF three or four
disgruntled attorneys who are seeking
only to revenge themselves upon the
men who have rendered just decisions
in cases where they had contingent