The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-16

road corporation in the State
 Tn our Judgment. the act creating the Railroad Commission Is not uI1- constitutional and void. That 1t may need amendments is most probable; Tn. deed, an experiment. so new and untried would be exceptional If Ii were perfect in It's very inception. The difference between the power to pass I law and
 the power to adopt rules and regulations to carry Into effect law. already pass and this we understand to he the dis- tinction recognized by all the courts as the true rule in determining whether or not, in such cases, legislative pow unconstitutional, whilst the latter would not. 91 III. Rep. s57; Tilly V Savannah. Florida and Western Rail- cult Court United states southern Dis trict of Georgia, Woods, J.) Sec pam. dec Supreme Court Of Georgia, Septem- Der, 1880, s4 U. $. Hep. ilS, 1S5. iss
 But for the proper interpretation Of the law in this cases we are not left alone to the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia. This identical case was appealed by the railroad company to the Supreme Court of the United States, which case is reported under the title of the Georgia Railroad V smith, 12s U. S. 174.
 The opinion of that court was deliv- cred by MT. Justice Fields. and is as follows:
 As appears from the statement of the case. the contention in the court below, of the company, the as it embraced any Federal question. was that the twelfth section of its charter constituted grant of right to charge the .'ates therein named; !; that 1t butt it's road and established its business with this grant as a part of it's charter; and that such a grant of Georgia. the obligation of which cannot be impaired by it's legislation; and this contention is renewed in this court
 The Constitution of Georgia adop- ted in December. 1877. vested in the General Assembly of the State. the designation given to it's legislature and passenger tariffs' so as to prevent unjust determinations and require reasonable and just rates: and make from time to time to accomplish this end, and to prohibit, by adequate pen atities, the charge of other than Such Fates rates of At ceorva rv sss Sss2 E. Appendixte
 Pursuant to this provision. of the Constitution, the act of October IA, 1878. was passed, providing for the appointment or three railroad commis- stoners, and authorizing them to pre- scribe the rates of fare which railroad companies might charge for the car in the limits of the State. The act does not extend to interstate railroad transportation. Laws of Georgia
 After authorizing the appointment of the three commissioners by tho gov ernor, the act declares that any rail- road company doing business in the State, after its passage, which shall charge or receive more than a fair aud reasonable toll or compensation for the transportation of passengers or freight Of any description, or for the use or transportation of any railroad car, np- on its track or branches, or upon any railroad which 1t has the right to use, shall be deemed guilty of extortion, and upon conviction thereof shali be subject to certain penalties prescrib- ed:
 required to make reasonable ard just rates of freight and passenger tariffs to be observed by all railroad compan- les doing business in the State on their roads, and to- provide for each of the companies a schedule of just and reasonable rates. of charges, for freight; and the act declares that in suits brought against any of the com Panies, involving unjust charges and i discriminations, such schedules shall be taken in the courts of the State as sumicient evidence that the rates pre- scribed are jus and reasonable
 the Commissioners are required circumstances call for 1t, to change and revise the schedules, and penal ties are prescribed for the enforce ment of their regulations.
 The supreme Court of the State tion in this eases that this delegation tf 2f authority by the Legislature to the Commissioners, to prescribe what shall be reasonable and just rates for
 the carriage and transportation of
 cons and property over railroads w,Ithin p,sn dt its i. limits, was a proper exer- lection to its citizens asainst unjust rates Tor such transportation, and to prevent unjust discrimination; and that It was expected, not that the Legislature would itself make speci- Tic regulations as to what should in each ease be q proper charge, but that It would simply provide the means by which such rates would be ascer- tained and inforced.
 It has been adjusted by this court in numerous instances that the Legis- lature of state has the power to prescribe the charges of a railroad company for the carriagfe of persons the absence of any provision in the charter of the company constituting a contract vesting in 1t authority over those matters. subject to the limitation out reward, or upon conditions amount ing to the taking of property for the public use without just compen- sation; and that what IS done does not amount to regulation of foreign or | interstate commerce. Stone Far mers Loan and Trust Company II6 55s '; s Sos' s$Ss SSSs ssl; Dow '; Beidelman, the company, by which numerous par ties are permitted to act as a single body for the purpose of It's creation, or, as Chief Justice Marshall expresses #, by which the character and proper ! ties of individuality" are bestowed "on | collective and changing body of men, l Providence Bank V. Billings, Pet 5l4, | 562; the grant to 1t of special privi-
 leges to carry out the object of It's Tn | corporation, particularly the authority l to exercise the States right of eminent domain that it may appropriate needed | property 8 right which can be exer- | cised only for public purposes; and the | obligation, assumed by the acceptance | of It's charter, to transport all persons and merchandise. upon like conditions and upon reasonable rates. affects the | property and employment with a public l use; and where property is thus afrect- ! ed, the husiness in which ft is used ts
 subject to legislative control
 l "So long as the use continues, the | power of regulation remains, and the 1 regulation may extend, not merely to | provisions for the security of passen l gers and freight against accidents, and l for the convenience of the public. but l also to prevent eXtortion by unrea- | sonable charges and favoritism by un- | just discrimination. This is not a new 1 doctrine, but old doctrine, always
 asserted whichever property or busi- ness Is, by reason of special privileges | ter to secure the purposes to which the | property is dedicated or devoted affect | ed with a public use. There have been
 differences of opinion among the judges