St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-04-20

foresight, and for the purpose of attracting
capital to enterprises Of doubtful profit, au-
tied tne, irreyocable by a subsequent legis-
lature. To do so would practically ignore or
oyerrule series of cases to which We have
already adverted wherein corporations have
been induced to furnish municipalities with
bridges, gas, water and other requirements
of modern civilization by the promise of ex-
elusive elusive privileges for term OF years; Per,
the competency of the legislature
to authorize railroad, by clear
Wth narae comnetng De sions nssee
may be imagined where it might be for the
public welfare to permit such consolidation.
But the act of 1865. upon which the defendant
relies, contains no such provision. There
is only general authority to consolidate,
which we think the legislature may by an>
other act. declare shall not apply to cases
manlfestly not within its original intent. We
think the general doctrine, requiring grants
to corporations to be construed fayorably to
the public, where there is reasonable doubt
as to the extent of the privilege conferred,
may properly be invoked to declare that
such privileges shall not be used to the detri-
ment of the public.
Whether the consolidation of competing
lines will necessarily result in an increase of
rates, or whether such consolidation has
generally resulted in detriment to the pub
lie, is beside the question Whether it has
that effect or not, it certainly puts it in the
power of the consolidated corporation to
give 1t that effect-in short, puts the public
at the mercy of the corporation. There is,
and has been, for the past 300 years, both
in England and in this country, a popular
prejudice against monopolies in general,
which has found expression in innumerable
prejudice is not we'll founded. 1t is a mat
ter upon which the legislature is entitled to
pass Judgment. At least there is sufficient
doubt of the propriety of such monopolies to
authorize the legislature, which may be pre-
sumed to represent the views of the public
to say that it will not tolerate them unless
the power to establish them be conferred
by clear and explicit language. While, in
particular cases. two railways by CONSOLE
dating their interests under a single man
agement, may have been able to so far re-
duces the expenses OF administration as to
give their customers the benefit of a lower
tariff, the logical effect of all monopolies
is an increase of price of the thing pro-
duce the expenses of administration as to
portation. Owing to the. greater speed and
cheapness of the service performed by them
railways become necessarily monopoists Of
all traffic along their lines; but the gen.
eral sentiment of the public declares that
such monopolies must be limited to the ne
cessities of the case, and rebels against the
attempts of one road to control all the traf-
f1c between terminal points, also connected
by competing line. There are, moreover
thought to be other dangers to the moral
sense of the community incident to such
great aggregations OF wealth, which, though
indirect, are even more insidious in their in
duence, and such as have awakened feelings
of hostility which have not failed to find
expression in legislative acts.
The consolidation of these two great cor
porat1ons VIII unaVoidably result in giving
10 the defendant monopoly of all traf-
nc in the northern half of the state of Min
nesota, as well as of all transcontinental traf-
nc north of the line of the Union Pacific,
against which public regulations will be but
Feeble protection. The acts of the Mime
sofa legislature of 1874 and 1881 undoubtedly
reflected the general sentiment of the pub
lie, that their best security is in competi-
ton.
In conclusion, we hold, that where, by a
railway charter, a general power is given to
consolidate with purchase, lease or acquire
the stock of other roads, which has remained
unexecuted, it is within the competency of
the legislature to declare, by subsequent acts
that this power shall not extend to the pur-
chase lease or consolidation with paraIleI or
competing lines.
The decree of the court below must there
fore be reversed, and the case remanded for
further proceedings in conformity with this
opinion. ~
Mr.. Justice Field and Mr.. Justice Brewer
dissented.
Judge Kelly, in his decision. held that the
wv" roads are parallel and competing lines
within the meaning of the statutes of 1874
and 1881 by which the law of 1866 granting
power to consolidate was repealed: that the
proposed traffic arrangement was in fact
consolidation, making the Great Northern
master; that the Great Northern charter
contained no grant to so consolidate; that If
IL did, section II reserved to future leeisla-
lures the right to amend and modify; that the
vested rights saved by section II referred
10 property, etc., actually acquired by use
ana that the state could at any time before
usage revoke the license or privilege granted
in 1866.