The Waco evening news. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 1891-1894, 1894-05-28

obligation of the state which it
could not repudiate. Whether, in
the absence of an express stipula.
ton of that character, there is not
implied in the grant of the right 10
construct and operate the grant a
right to enable the company to
charge and collect such toll as will
enable it to successfully operate the
road and return some profit to those
who have invested their money in
! the construction, is a question not
as yet determined.
"It is at least a question which
arises az to the extent to which
that contract goes and one in which
the corporation has the right to in
woke the Jurisdiction of the court
and if the corporation, a citizen of
the state, has the right to maintain
the suit for the determination
of that question, clearly citizen of
another state, who has, under the
authority<of the laws of the state of
Texas, become peculiarly interested
and, indeed, the benefici owner of
the property of the corporation, may
invoke the judgment of the federal
courts as to whether the contract
rights created by the charter of
which he is thus the beneficial
owner are violated by subsequent
acts of the state in limitation of the
right to collect tolls. Our con.
clusion from these considerations is
that the objections of the jurisdic
tion of the circuit court is not
tenable and this, whether we rest
upon the provisions of the statute
itself or the general Jurisdiction,
existing by virtue of the statute of
congress under the sanction of the
constitution of the United States.
"Passing from the question of
jurisdiction to the act itself, there
can be no doubt of the general
power of the state to regulate the
fare and freight rates which may be
charged and received by railroads
and other carriers, and that this
regulation may be carried on by
means of a commission. Such
commission Ia merely an admins.
trative board created by the state
for carrying into effect the will of
the state as expressed by it's legisla.
ton. (Raiiroad Commission Case,
ZIG United States, 307.) No valid
objection can therefore he made on
account of the general features of
this act, by which the state has Gre
ated the railroad commission and
entrusted it with the duty of pre-.
scribing rates for fare and freights,
as we'll as other regulations for the
management of the railroads in the
state.
"Specific objections are made to
the act on the ground that by sec.
tion the Rates and regulations
made by the commission are de-
clared conclusive in all actions be.
tween private individuals and the
companies, and that by section IA
excessive penalties are imposed upon
the railroad corporations for any
violation of the provisions of the
act, and thus, as claimed, there is
not only limitation, but a practi.
cal denial to the railroad companies
of the right of judicial il quiry in
to the reasonableness of rates pre-.
soribed by the commission.
"For the purpose of this case it
may be conceded that both of these
clauses are unconstitutional, and |
still the great body of the act re.
mains unchailenged; that which es.
tablished the commission and EN-.
powers it to make reasonable rates
and regulations for the control of
railroads. 1t is familiar law that
one section or part of an act may be
invalid without affecting the
validity of the remaining portion of
the statute. Any independent pro
vision may thus be cropped out and
that which is left is fully operative
as law, unless it is evident upon
consideration of all the sections that
tie Legislature would not have en-
acted that which is within indie.
perdently of that beyond its power.
"Applying this rule, the invalid.
ity of these two provisions may be
conceded without impairing the rest
al