The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1897-06-01

and repairs and some profit on the
reasonable cost Of building the road
could not be interfered with though
they were not high enough to pay In
terest on all its debts, since they may
have been incurred through extrava-
gance or mismanagement.
In Chicago vs.. Wellman 14S U. 8.
$50 the Act Of the legislature Of Wis.
consin fixing
RAILROAD FARES AT TWO CENTS PER
MILE
was sustained, the court saying that
before the courts would declare such
an act unconstitutional because the
rates prevented stockholders receiving
any dividend or bondholders any In.
teregt, the court must be fully advised
as to what was done with the earnings,
otherwise by exorbitant or unreason'
able salaries or in some other improper
way the company might tax the pub
lie with unreasonable charges. Unless
such things are negatived by proof Of
reasonable salaries and expenses, or il
the record is silent the legislative rate
will be sustained" This is q valuable
and noteworthy decision and no judge
dissented from so just a ruling. The
same principle is re affirmed in Reagan
va. Trust Co, 154 .. 8. ct p. 412.
In the most recent case, Livingston
VS.. Sanford, 1874 U. 8. 57s decided De
cember, 1896, the court, while main
tanning that ordinarily the rates must
not be such as to leave the owners nc
profit at-all, says: 1--WE could not say
that the Act was unconstitutional be.
cause the company las is alleged and
6ddmitted) could not earn more than 4
per cent. 6nfita capital stock. It can
not be said that q corporation is en-
titled as of right and without reference
to the interest of the public to realizl
any given per cent. on its capital stock.
When the question arises whether the
legislature has exceeded it's constitu-
tional power inprescribing the rates to
be charged by a corporation controlling
a public highway,
STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT THE ONLY PER
SONS
whose rights or interests are to be con.
sidered. The rights OF the public are
not to be ignored" The court further
says that the inquiry as to whether
rates are reasonable and just includes
whether they are reasonable and just
to the public, and adds: 1.-THE public
cannot properly be subjected to I'm.
reasonable rates in order simply that
stockholders may earn dividends. . =
IL @ corporation cannot maintain such
a highway and earn dividends for
stockholders, it is q misfortune for it
and them which the Constitution does
not require to be remedied by impos.
ing unjust burdens upon the public"
CHARTER EXEMPTIONS.
In Stone VS.. Farmers Co., 116 q. 8.
3O7, it was held reversing the Supreme
Court of Mississippi and also in Stone
Va. Ill. 116 q. s 349, that a provision in
q railroad charter that 1.-THE company
may from time to time fix, regulate,
and receive the tolls and charges to be
received" did not constitute a contract
restricting the State from fixing or re-
ducing charges within the limits Of its
general power to declare what shall be
deemed reasonable rates. So a~charter
provision giving a railroad company
power to charge such sums for trans
portation of persons and property as
shall seem desirable" or cit shall deem
reasonable" does not preclude the leg
islature from prescribing a maximum
of charges which it may make. Peik
VS.. Chicago, "a q. 8. 1874; Chicago vs..
Ackley, Ibid; Stone VS.. Wis. 81 o..
8. 161; Chicago VS.. Num-, 134 U. 8
41S; RUggles We Railroad, 1O8 U. 8
526; Laurel Fork VS.. West Va. Go. 25
West Va. 314; and this is true though
the charter expressly gives the corpora
ton power Ito fix its own rates" since
this is implicitly subject to legislative
power to re qlire them to be reasonable.
Railroad VS.. Miller, 1872 U. 8. rs; Rug
giles vs. People, 81 Ill. 256; Railroad VS..
People, 95 Ill. 313; Wells VS.. Oregon, 8
Sawy. 600, and the same has been re-
peatedly held as to gas companies and
water companies. A charter giving a
railroad a right to fix its rates if not be-
yOnd a rate stated in the charter is held
not g contract but subject to the legis-
lative power to 6xeother reasonable
rates as a maximum from time to time
as money changes in Vaiue or operat
ing costs diminish. Georgia VS.. Smith,
20 Go. 1914; Winchester VS.. Croxton, 81
Ky.-Q896).