The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1898-05-04

wharfngers, all property and avoca-
tions AFFECTED by public interest"
and cited many English and American
decisions, recognizing this to be true
statement Of the well-settled claw Of
the land" The court in that case we'll
said that in all such matters, 'The con-
trolling fact is the power to regulate at
all. If that exists, the right to estab-
lish maximum Of charge, as one of
the means Of regulation, is implied. In
fact, the common law rule, which re-
quires the charge to be reasonable, is
itself a regulation as to price. With
out it the owner could make his rates at
will, and compel the public to yield to
his terms, or forego the use.
To limit the rate of charges for services
rendered in public employment, or for
the use of property in which the public
has an interest, is only changing reg
ulation which existed BEFORE" and
therefore, the court declared that it is
not "a taking of property without due
process of law" The court further
said, 1--WE know that this is a power
which may be abused, but that is no
argument against it's existence. For pro-
lection against abuses by legislatures,
the people must resort to the polls not
to the courts" This is very plain
immemorial law, and if that court, un-
der tremendous pressure, has since in
timated that the courts might supervise
legislative action if the rates should ev-
er be such as to destroy the value Of
property, it has never infringed upon
it's declaration that the people through
it's representatives in the law-making
body, could prescribe rates, and the
court, in fact, has never ventured TO
set aside the legislative rates in a
single case ever brought before it as
unreasonable, nor has it fixed the pre-
else line at which it would assume to
intervene.
By all the decisions, the right to fix
rates being not judicial but legis-
lative power to be exercised by the
legislature itself or through a commits
sion created by it, it logically follows
that as the court said in this case, and
reafirmed in Budd VS.. New York, 143
U. S., SIG, the remedy for a harsh exer-
else of the power (f it should ever hap
pen) is a recourse to the people at the
ballot box, not to the courts. For an
unwise or oppressive use of it's powers,
the legislature is not subject to the
supervision of the judiciary, which is
merely a coordinate branch of the
government. 1t is only when the legis-
lature passes an act-whether wisely
or unwisely-which is not within the
scope of it's powers, that the courts can
declare it unconstitutional.
In this same case (Munn VS.. Illinois)
the court further holds that the pro-
that no state shall deny to any person
within it's Jurisdiction the equal protec-
tion Of the laws" has no application;
for Certainly" it says, cit cannot be
from regulating the fares of hackmen or
the charges of draymen in Chicago, un-
less 1t does the same thing in every other
place in its Jurisdiction" This rule has
since been reiterated in Dow VS.. Beidel-
man, 125 U. S. $50
Some time has been given to the con-
sideration Of this as it is lead
ing case, in which the force of great
ing case, in which the force of
great capital was brought to
bear to remove the ancient landmarks
which protected the people from ex-
cessive and unreasonable charges. No
case has been more often cited since
and approved. II at common law the
people had right to regulate the
charges Of stage lines, grist mills,
bakers, chimney-sweeps, inn-keepers
and the like, as to whom the public con-
ferred no franchises, for an Overwhelm-
ing reason it must possess that right as
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
act. Beyond that, railroad corporations
are vested with the power of eminent
domain, since power is given to them,
to take possession of lands of others.
against their will, in order to build
their tracks. This could only be done
If these corporations are created Tor
the public benefit, since the constitution
forbids private property to be taken
except for public uses.'
In the very next case to Mum VS.. H.
linois, the supreme court of the United
States held Chicago R. R. VS.. Iowa, "a
U. S., 1859 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 for
long series Of years, made no difference,
for government could lose none of it's
powers by non-user; and further that
1t did not affect the case that before
the legislature had fixed the maximum
rate, the company had pledged it's in
como coo,,ri<v dol,% hoa r....1