The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-08-11

within its limits. II did say that
Just how such compensation may be
ascertained and what the necessary
elements are in such an inquiry,
would always be an embarrassing
question. And in the case o. Covisg-
ton and Lexington Turnpike Road
Co. vs. Sanford, lGi. L. s., 57S. the
supreme court said: Each case
must depend upon its special facts;
and when q court. without Assuming
itself to prescribe rates, is rquired
to determine whether the rates pre-
scribed by the Legislature for a cor
poration controlling q ublic high
way are, as an entirety, SO unjust
as 10 destory the value of its pro-
perty for all the purposes for
which it was acquired, its duty is to
take into consideration the interests
both of the public and of the owner
of the property, together with all
other circumstances that are fairly
to be considered in the determining
whether the legislature has under
the guise Of regulating rates exceed
ed its constitutional authority, and
practically deprived tho owner of
property without due process of law.
The utmost that any corporation
operating a public highway can
rightfully demand at the hands of
the legislature. when exerting its
general powers, is that it receive
what, under all the circumstances.
is such compensation for the use of
its property as will be just, both to it
and to the public"
In regard to whether the contention
of the complainant that it has q right
to earn enough to pay all of its fixed
charges, operating expenses and
taxes before the right of the State
to interfere becomes operative, the
Supreme Court in the case of Smyth
vs.. Ames. 1876 I. S. SAB, says:
Cannot Ignore the Public.
"In the discussion of the question
the plaintiff contended that a rail-
road company is entitled to exact
such charges for transportation as
will enable it, at all times, not only
to pay operating expenses, but also
to meet the interest regularly accru-
ing upon all its outstanding obliga-
tions, and Justify a dividend upon
all its stock; and that to prohibit it
from maintaining rates or charges
for transportation adequate to all
those ends will deprive it of it's prop
erty without due process of law and
deny to it the equal protection of the
laws. This contentl ion was the sub
ject of elaborate discussion; and, as
it bears upon each case in its i'm
portant aspects, it should not be
passed without examination.
"In our opinion the broad propo-
sition advanced by counsel involves
some misconceptions of the relations
between the public and a railroad
corporation. 1t is understood in that
it practically excludes from con.
sideration the fair value of the prop
erty used, omits altogether any con,
sideratlon of the right of the public
to be exempt from unreasonable ex
actions, and makes the interests oi
the corporation maintaining public
highway the sole test in determining
whether the rates established by o.
for it are such as may be rightful..y
prescribed as between it and the pub
lie. A railroad is public highway
and none the less so because con
structed and maintained through tn,
agency of corporation deriving IT.
existence and powers from the State
Such q corporation was created TO
public purposes. 1t performs func
ton of the State. Its authority t.
,, exercise the tight of eminent domain
anG to- charge tolls was given pri
: marily for the benefit of the public
= It is under governmental control
7 though such control may be exer
eised with due regard TO the consti
tutional guarantees for tie protec
: ton of its property. Olcitt v. Th
. Supervisors, l6 Wall, 67S-694: Sink
' ing Fund cases, 80 U. s. TOO -zls
Cherokee Nation v. southern Kanss
Railway, l3o 7. S. G41-657. It car
: not, therefore, be admitted that
= railroad corporation maintaining
? highway under the authority Of tn
7 State may fix it's rates with a vie
= solely to its own int rests, and is
- more the rights Of the public. Br
- the rights of the public would be il
nored if rates for the transpartatio
:, fof persons or property on a railroa
= are exacted without reference to IL
: fair value of the property used #
); the pubic or the fair value of tt
" services rendered, but in order sir
= ply that the corporations may me
=, ~ operating expenses, pay the intere
- on its obligations, and declare
y dividend to stockholders,
h wsteysa STOCK Not Assets
"a IF railroad corporation b
Of bonded Its property for an amou
of that exceeds its fair value, or if
q capitalix alton is largely fictitious,
in may not impose upon the public t
Ill burden of such increased rates
I'd may be required for the purpose
nd realizing profits upon such excessi
Il, valuation OF fictitious capitalizatic
ar and the apparent value of the pre-
80 erty and franchises used by the G.
)A; poratian, as represented by its stoc
ne bonds and obligations, Is not alone
is be considered when determining
rates that may be reasonably charg
What was said in Covington a
Lexington Turnpike Road Co.
OF Sanford, l64 Z. S. Sk8, 1867,
tes pertinent to the question under Ct
nd sideration. 1t was there observ
'es 1T cannot be said that a corporal
ltli is entitled, as Of right, and with
ald reference to the interest of the p,
to lie, to realize given per cent. NJ
ses its capital stock. When the quest
the arises whether the legislature
len exceeded its constitutional power
ate prescribing rates to be charged b.
OF corporation controlling PM
OF highway, stockholders afe not
'lic only persons whose rights or in
'sn esta are to be considered. The rig
yet of the public are not to be ignol
be; It is alleged here that the rates ]
L IL