The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-05-25

Texas case the right to regulate the
charges of cotton congresses is recogniz-
ed, and there are also cases recognizing
the right to regulate charges of tobacco
warehouses and of warehouses for stor-
ing and weighing cotton, and to regulate
services and charges of general ware
housemen. Delaware VS.. Stockard, ID
n. j. Ed, 80.
The same right of public regulation of
rates applies to street railways. Buffalo
Il. 4. Co. VS.. Buffalo, III n. T.. 49,;
Sternberg VS.. State. 36 Neb., 3O1; Parker
vs. Railroad, 100 Mass, SOC. And to ca
nails. Perrine VS.. Canal Co., 8 Howard,
L. S.. 172. and to ferries. Stephens VS..
Powell, 1 Ore, 2S3; State VS.. Hudson Co.,
% \. J. L., BOG; Parker VS.. Railroad,
100 Mass, SOC To toll roads and bridges.
Covington VS. Sanford, II Ky, 6S9; Ibid,
164 L. S., 57S: California VS. Railroad
Co, 121 L. S., 1.
And wharf charges. Onachita VS.. Ak
en-. III Z. s., 444. And to telegraph
rates. Mayo VS.. Tel. Co., 112 n. c., 343:
Railroad Commission VS.. Tel. Co., 1l3
n. c.. 213: Leavell vs. Railroad Co., JIG
y. c.. 211: People VS.. Budd. III \. Y,
1 State VS. Edwards, sc Me-, 105. And
telephone charges. although the telephone
is covered by United States patent.
Hockett VS.. State, 105 Ind. $50; Tele-
phone Co. VS.. Bradbury, JOG Ind, /;
Johnson VS.. State 113 Ind, 143; Tele-
phone Co. VS.. State, 11S Ind, 1914 and
1913: Telephone Co. VS.. B. and 0. Tele-
graph Co, &c Nd, 800.
AS to gas companies the right of the
State to regulate rates either itself or
through power conferred upon municipal
corporations is beyond controversy. To-
ledo VS.. Gas Co., 5 0. St. 557; State VS..
Gashght Co., 81 Ohio ST., 572; Zanes-
vile VS.. Gaslght Co. Al Ohio ST., /;
New Memphis VS.. Memphis, y Fed.
Rep. go; Capital City VS.. Des Moines,
Ibid, 800: Gaslight Co. VS.. Cleveland,
II Fed. Rep, 610; State VS.. Laclede, 1O2
Mo-. 472; Foster VS.. Findlay. 6 Ohio c.
c.. 455: Manhattan VS.. Trust Co., 16 u.
s. App. 5SS: State VS.. Cincinnati, IS
Ohio ST., 262. The power to regulate
water rates has already been cited as de-
cided in Spring Valley VS.. Schottler, 40
L. s.. BAT. and the right to authorize
municipal bodies to regulate the price,
weight and quality of bread is declared
upon the presidents to be settled law.
Mobile VS.. Yuille. 3 Ala, 1877 Mum VS..
People. 60 H., so.
The power to regulate the tolls of pub
lie mills is declared. citing many prece-
dents. in State VS.. Edwards, sc Me-, 102;
West vs.. Rawson. 40 w. Va. 4S0; also
the power to fix the rates for the salvage
of logs. West Branch VS.. Fisher, 80
Pa. AIS: Pere Marquette VS.. Adams, A
Mich, 403; Underwood VS.. Pelican
Boom Co.. 16 Wis, 76. The above are
but few of the cases recognizing the
inherent public right to regulate those
matters. and there are still many other
matters recognized as matters subject
to public regulation.
1t must not be forgotten that there is
broad distinction in the law. running
through all ages, between the above and
similar avocations affected with a public
interest" as TO which the sovereign or
the public has the rate to regulate and fix
rates, and purely private matters, as
farming. selling merchandise. manufac-
turing and similar matters, which are
purely private in their nature and as to
which the public has never claimed or
exercised the right of regulation. 1t is
by ignorance or an affected ignorance
of this broad distinction in law. and
which is based on the essential difference
in the nature of things. that denial has
sometimes been attempted (by those not
lawyers) of the right of public regulation
in matters as to which the public has al
ways possessed that right.
From the beginning of this State as
a colony, our statute books have borne
provisions regulating the tolls of public
mills. and until very recent years the
county courts fixed the charges of inn
Lx+r Is. Ia
regulations have been abandoned of late
years, not because the power does not
still exist, but because its exercise was no
longer required to protect the public, the
multiplication of inns and hotels fur
nishing sufficient protection by reason OF
competition. The regulation of the tolls
of grist mills, ferries, and the like. is still
exercised.
As to railroads and public carriers the
complete list of decisions uniformly sus-
tanning the public right to fix their
charges. both in State and Federal
Courts, would fill many pages. Enough
have been cited tn enable the student to
see that the principle rs absolutely set
tied beyond possibility of question and he
can trace up other decisions to that effect
if so inclined.
In the great case of People VS.. Budd
III \. Y, %, the highest court of New
York, speaking through one of its ablest
and purest judges. said: Society could
not safely surrender the power to regI-
late by law the business of common car
riers. It's value has been infinitely in
creased by the conditions of modern corr
merce under which the carrying trade
of the county is to a great extent alb
sorbed by corporations, and as a check
upon the greed of these consolidated in
terests the legislative pwer of regula-
ton is demanded by imperative public
interest. The same principle upon
which the control of common carriers
rests has enabled the State to regulate
in the public interest the charges of tele-
phone and telegraph companies and to
make the telephone and telegraph, these
important agencies of commerce. sub
servient to the wants and necessities Of
society. These regulations in no way in
terfere with rational liberty-liberty
regulated by law" This decision was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States.
Dedication of pOwpr-Ihe authority