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

tion forbids private property to be
taken except for public uses"
In the very next case to Mum vs..
Illinois, the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States held (Ohicago r. r. vs. Iowa,
"a q. s. 1850 that railroads being COM
mon carriers for hire are subject to
legislative control as to their rates OF
fare and freight and that the State
not having exercised the right Tor q
long series Of years made no difference
for q government could lose none OF Its
mowers by non use; and further that
it did not 'affect the case that before
the legislature had fixed the maximum
rate the company had pledged its IN
come as security for debt and had
leased its road to a tenant who paid g
higher rent because the rates had not
been reduced by legislative enactment,
since the company held it's franchise
SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
to regulate rates and could not convey
either to it's mortgage or its lessee
greater rights than it had itself" The
opinion in this case also was written by
the Chief Justice. The same decision
Gifted and approved since in Ruggles
VS.. R Co. 1O8 q. s. 626 and R Go. VS..
Illinois, 1O8 q. s.. SAL and in other
cases) sustained the power OF the legls-
lature to classify railroads according
to the amount of business done and to
prescribe ''a maximum Of rates for
each of the classes" the court saying
that a uniform rate for all railroads In
the State might possibly operate un-
Justly and that at any rate it was In
the discretion of the general assembly
to classify the roads and fix different
rates. In fact in the latest case, Gov,
ington vs. Sanford, 164 q. 8. 678, it
was held that it was in the legislative
power to prescribe a different rate for
each road.
In Peik vs.. Chicago, "a o, 8. 1914, the
court held, the Chief Justice again
delivering the opinion, that where a
Railroad was chartered by two or more
States, each State had nevertheless
the right to Ak the rates between any
two points in its. own territory and
further said, quoting Mum VS.. Illinois,
that the legislature and not the courts,
must say what are reasonable rates for
the legislative rate "binds the courts
as we'll as the people. If it has been
improperly fixed the legislature, not
the courts must be appealed to for the
change" And on the next page
Chicago VS.. Ackley, "a q. 8. 179 the
court again held that the maximum
fixed by the legislature is binding and
the railroad company will not be per.
mitted to collect more by showing in
the courts that the prescribed rate is
unreasonably low. This has since been
reafirmed in Budd We. New York, 143
U. 8. SIG at PIP. b47.
This question however cannot arise
as to rates which shall be fixed by the
railroad commission of this State, since
THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS LIBERALITY
expressly provides in the Act of 1891,
creating the Railroad Commission,
that if any common carrier shall deem
the rates prescribed too low, the com
pany may appeal to the Superior
Court. In that court a jury Of IL men
can pass upon and settle the fact in
dispute whether the rate is reasonable
or not. Nothing a be fairer than to
submit the question to the same tri.
bunal which settles all disputed issues
of fact when the lives, liberty, rights
and property Of any citizen are at
stake.
The right of the public to regulate
rates is not restricted to those avoca.
tions which are essentially monopo-
lies, as railroads and the like, but it
applies to all matters which are affected
by a public use.i This was carefully
considered by the Court of Appeals of
New York in People VS.. Budd, III N.
Y. 1, in which it was declared that the
right Of regulation by the public is not
restricted to cases in which the owner
has a legal monopoly or some special
governmental privilege or protection,
but extends to all public employments
and property. In that case a statute
fixing a minimum charge for grain
elevators was sustained. This decision
upon writ Of error was affirmed by the
Supreme Court of U. s., Budd vs. N.
Y. 143 q. S. 517, and to same effect is
Brass VS.. North Dakota 153 q. 8. 391.
The right of regulation applies also
to WGter companies, Spring Valley VS..
Schottler, 10 U. S. $40, and in a re-