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

mas Deem 6on9G1meS 666empSoQ (OYI
those not lawyers) of the right Of public
regulation in matters as to which the
public has always possessed that right.
From the beginning Of this State as
o. Colony, our statute books have borne
provisions regulating the tolls of pub
lie mills, and until very recent years
the county courts fixed the charges Of
inn keepers, hotels and bar-rooms. The
latter regulations have been abandoned
OF late years not because the power
does not still exist, but because its ex
ercise was no longer required to pro-
tect the public, the multiplication Of
inns and hotels furnishing sufficient
protection by reason Of % petition.
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
sustaining the public right to fix their
charges both in State and Federal
courts would ill many pages. Enough
have been cited to enable the student
to see that the principle is absolutely
settled beyond possibility of question,
and he.can trace up other decisions that
effect If so inclined.
In the great case of People vs.. Budd,
III N. Y. %, the highest court of New
York, speaking through n Of its
ablest and purest judges, said: "Soci
ETY. could not safely surrender the
power to regulate by law the business
of common carriers. Its value has been
infinitely increased by the conditions
of modern commerce under which the
carrying tfaoSof the aeiSSntry is to a
great extent absorbed by corpoFatie9a
and as q check upon the greed of these
consolidated interests the legislative
power Of regulation 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 telephone and telegraph
companies and to make the telephone
and telegraph, these important agencies
of commerce, subservient to the wants
and necessities of society. These regu-
lations IN no way interfere with a
rational liberty-iberty regulated by
law" This decision was affirmed by
the Supreme Court of the United
States.
DELEGATION OF POWER.
The authority of the legislature to
empower q railroad commission to pre-
scribe reasonable rates for common
carriers is held constitutionalin numer-
Gus cases, among them Railroad Com
mission cases, ITO y. 8. 307; Reagan VS..
Trust Co., 1874 q. 8. 362, 393; State VS..
Chicago, 80 MINI. PSI; Chicago va.
Dey, IS Fed. Rep. 500; Tilley vs. savan-
nah, 4 Woods 449; Clyde VS.. Railroad,
81 Fed. Rep. 4S6; Chicago VS. Jones,
149 Ill. SOL; Stone We. Railroad, 50 Miss.
COZ; Stern va. Natchez, 50 Miss. GAS;
McWhorter VS.. Railroad Go. "a Fla
Az; Storrs vs. Railroad, 90 Fla. 617;
State vs.. Fremont, % Neb. 313, and in
our " State, Express Co. VS.. Rail
road, Ill N. @. 1853; and the legislature
may prescribe that such rates shall be
deemed prima facie reasonable, State
va. Fremont, supra; Chicago VS.. Dey.
supra.
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE
The right of the courts to interfere
with the rates fixed by the law.making
power was denied in Mum vs. Ill. and
several other cases in 94U.6 8. and inBudd
va. N. Y. above cited, but in Reagan
va. Trust Co., 1874 U. s.. 962 and Alb
and ST. Louis VS.. Gill, 156 q. s 649 it
has been since been declared that the
fixing and enforcement Of unreason
able and unjust rates for railroads was
unconstitutional. But just what rates
will be considered unreasonable and I'M
just has not yet been stated by the
United States Supreme Court. The
discussion in the cases just cited, as
we'll as in others, plainly shows q dis
position to interfere and condemn leg
islative rates only when it is clear that
their enforcement amounts to a de
struction of the value of the property.
In Mum vs. People, SO Ill. 80 and Chi
cago VS.. Dey, 35 Fed. Rep. s66, it was
held that rates fixed by legislative au-
thority that will give some compensa
ton, however small to the owners of
railroad property cannot be held in
sufficient by the courts. This rule
leaves large power to the legislature
and would sanction statutes which
would cut down railroad dividends to
q mere pittance. But it is hard to see
how any other rule can be adopted
which will not in effect deny the right