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

sure has since intimated that the courts
might supervise legislative action IL tue
rates should ever be such as to destroy
the value of property, 1t mas never III
fringed upon its declaration that the peo-
pie through its representatives IN the Jaw
making body could prescribe rates anu
the court in fact has never ventureo ~
set aside the legislative rates III
s;noIa case ever brought before II do
unreasonable. nor has it fixed the precise
limo Mt which it would intervene c.
~ all the decisions the rlsht 10 ia
,..+ns hoing not a judicial but es!e,
t;ro mower. to be exercised by the ieslsl.'-
ture itself or through conn ~
ated by it. it logically follows tna' s as ~.
court said in this case, anu g re +bo
in Rudd VS.. New York, lto = ~ - nx,rar
remedy for a harsh exercise u 'ne po" ~
Gf If should ever happen is ieoouise ~, "
the people at the ballot poA' nv y. ,,so
'he Tor an unwise or oppressive use
eoui TO- the legislature is not sub
u 10 H. Sunervision of the judiciary
!S:ot = merely q coordinate branch OF
W. onvnrnment. 1t is only when the legls-
- docs an act-whether wisely or
r,.;selv-which is not within the scope
f is nowers-that the courts can de-
..,ore il unconstitutional
T., This same case Mum VS.. illinois,
the court further holds that the provision
=, tho fourteenth amendment that no
Soto shall deny to any person within Its
iurisdiction the equal protection OF thv
-, hoe no anp,ication. for certainly,
:-s ..;t can not be claimed that TINS
ronts tho State from regulating the
foraS Of hackmen or the charges Oh ara!
mon in Chicago unless it does the salle
ching in every other place in Its Jurlsulc
tom . This rule has since been rel. ad
IN Now US Reidelman 12o L. >, ooo.
some time has been given to the consid
orot;on of Nunn VS.. Illinois, as 1t Is the
leading one. in which the force OF great
combinations of capital was brought 10
haor To remove the ancient LANDMARKS
which protected the people from excessive
and unreasonable charges. No case mas
baan moro often cited since and approved.
II at common law the public had rlSht
"a regulate the charges of stage Ihes'
orist mills. bakers, chimney sweeps, mn
taaners and the Exc. as to whom the pun
liz conferred no franchises, for an over
whelming reason it must possess lh..'
right ms to the modern carriers by rail-,
whose companies receive their existence
from the public Will and have the breath
Of life breathed into them by Legislative
o.t Ravond that. railroad corporations
are vested with the power OF eminent 40
main. since power is given TO them TO
taka nossession of the lands of others,
against their will. in order to build their
tracks. This could only be done If these
Conversations are created for the public
banafit since the constitution forbids pri-
yate property to be taken except for pub
bic uses
In the very next case to Mum VS.. llh-
nois. the Supreme court of the United
States held Chicago Railroad VS. Iowa,
"a Z. S. 1861 that railroads being COM
mon carriers for hire are subject to legs
latiye control as to- their rates of fare
and freight and that the State not hay-
ing exercised the right for long series
of years made no difference, for govern
n,ent could lose none of its powers by
non-user. and further that it did not 'af-
feet the case that before the legislature
had fixed the maximum rate the company
had pledged its income ae security for
debt and had leased its road to tenant
who paid higher rent because the rates
had not been reduced by legislative en-
actment, since the company held ITS iran
chise subject TO the legislative power TO
regulate rates and it could not convey
either to its mortgage or its lessee great
er rights than it had itself The opinion
in this case also was written by the Chief
Justice The same decision fcited and APP
proved since in Ruggles VS.. r. Co, los
Z. S. 526. and II. Co. VS.. Illinois, los U.
s. al. and in other casee) sustained the
mower of the Legislature to classify rail-
roads according to the amount of business
o,,l 10 cf.rih no
for all railroads in the State might poss1-
bly, operate unjustly and that at any rate
If was in the discretion of the general
assembly to classify the roads and fix DIFF
ferent rates. In fact. in the latest case
Coyington VS.. Sanford, 164 {. s., o1S, it
was held that it was in the legislative
mower to prescribe different rate for
each roads
ssfnsPeik ~ Chicago, 81 L. s., 164, the
court held, the Chief Justice again de-
Iiyering the opinion, that where railroad
was chartered by two or more States.
each State had nevertheless the right to
fix the rates between any two points in its
own territory and further said, quoting
from Mum VS. Illinois, that the Legisla-
ture. and not the courts, must say what
are reasonable rates, for the legislative
rate binds the courts as we'll as the peo-
pie If it has been improperly fixed the
Legislature. not the courts, must be APP
pealed to for the change" And on the
next page. Chicago vs.. Ackley, "a e. s.,
I79. the court again held that the maxi
mum fixed by the Legislature is binding
and the railroad company will not be
permitted 10 collect more by showing in
the courts that the prescribed rate is UNI
reasonably low. ais has since been re-
affirmed in Budd VS.. New York, 143 L.
S.. SIC, at PIP $40 to 547.
This question. however. cannot arise
as to rates which shall be fixed by the
raiIroad commission of this State since
the Legislature in its liberaity expressly
provides in the Act of 1891, creating the
Railroad Commission, that if any common
carrier shall deem the rates prescribed