The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-26

VlSlOu, DtIWeeH Cue u1uoreuG CldSSeS OK
goods carried, is largely, in fact almost
wholly arbitrary; and is a matter of
bookkeeping. Such appointments are
necessary, proper and desirable; in or
der that each class Of merchandise may
be charged with its fair proportion Of
the entire cost, having in mind the
character and values Of the several
commodities. These matters are ques-
lions of classification, with which
a commission. can deal easily and UNI
derstandingly, thru its expert agents.
Authority Explicitly Stated.
Coming back directly to the question
of authority, I quote from two deci-
sions of the supreme court of b
United States. In Smyth & Ames, 169
United States, page 544, Justice Har-
Ian, delivering the opinion of the court,
says:
GA railroad is a public highway, and
none the less so because constructed
and maintained thru the agency Of a
| corporation deriving its existence and
| powers from the state. Such a corpor-
alton was created for public purposes.
It performs a function Of the state.
Its authority to exercise the right of
eminent domain and to charge tolls
was given primarily for the benefit Of
the public. It Is under governmental
control, tho such control must be ex-
ercised with due regard to the consti-
tutional guarantees for the protection
of its property
Again, at pages $40, SAG, in the same
case, the court says:
GA corporation maintaining a public
highway, altho it owns the property it
employs for accomplishing public OBJ
jects, must be held to have accepted its
rights, privileges and ~franchisges sub
ject to the condition that the govern
ment creating it, or the government
ness, may by legislation, protest her
people against unreasonable charges
for the services rendered by it."
In the case of Chicago s. Grand
Trunk Railway VS.. Wellman, 143 United
States, page 344, Justice Brewer says;
"The legislature has power to fix
rates; and the extent of judicial inter-
ference is protection against unreason-
able rates. :
In the face Of these utterances Of the
court of final jurisdiction and last re-
sort, what use to argue as to the power
or right of the government to regulate
railroad corporations or to fix railroad
rates2
The decisions of the courts, and the
principles upon which they rest, are
strangely unfamiliar to many by whom
they should be best understood. One
railroad manager has written and pub,
Hshed a pamphlet article, in which he
argues, in apparent good faith, that
because the power to exercise the right
} of eminent domain is delegated by the
state to railroad corporations for the
public interest, and not for the persona.
benefit of the carriers, and because rail
roads are public highways, they should
D be exempt from state regulation. A.
n the reasons enumerated are the identi
y cal reasons stated by the most eminent
Judges for reaching a contrary conclu
4 sion, it is easy to see that great minds
e differ. There are, however, able men
occupying high positions in railroad ad
l. ministration, who do not hesitate tt
a admit both the propriety and necessit.
Of reasonable and proper governmental
9 regulation. These men have Away
advised cheerful compliance with tn
law; and the results of their policy i
manifested in the prosperity Of tn
q properties entrusted to their control.