The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-11-23

raul Railroad company vs. the Railroad $. 167.
 Few cases are more difficult or per- picking than those which involve an in- quiry whether the rates prescribed by state legislature for the carriage of pas sengers and freight are reasonable. And yet this difficulty affords no excuse for a failure to examine and solve the ques- tions involved. i, It has often been said that this is a government of laws, and not of men; and this court in Tick Wo V. Hopkins, 11S U. S. 35636 (S0, l. ed. 220 6 Sup. Ct. Rep 1064 When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and &C., tion of purely personal and arbitrary power'
 When we recall that, as estimated, over ten thousands millions of dollars are invested in railroad property, the propo- sition that such a vast amount of prop erty is beyond the protecting clauses of the constitution, that the owners may be deprived of it by the arbitrary enact ment of any legislature, state or national, without any right of appeal to the courts. is one which cannot for a moment be tolerated. Difficult as are the questions involved, in these cases, burdensome as the labor is which they cast upon the courts, no tribunal can hestitate to re- spond to the duty of inquiry and protec- ton cast upon it by the constitution. tR. R. Com. cases, 116 U. S. 307. sub. nom Stone vs. Farmers l.. and T. Co.,, 29 l.. ed 636, Sup. Ct. Rep. 334 3SS, 1191: Dow vs. Beidelman 125 U. s. 6S0; Georgia R. and Bkg. Co, vs. Smith, 12S U. s. 174; Chi o.aI DA 134 U. S. AIS: Chicago and G. T. R. Co.,, vs. Welman, 143 U. S. 339; Reagan vs. Farmers Loan and T. Co., 154 U. S. 362: St. Louis and s. F. R. Co.,, vs. Gill. 156 U. S. 649; Covington and L. Turnp. Co.,, vs. Sanford, 164 T. S. 57s; Smythe vs. Ames, 1899 U. S. 466) It is often said that the legislature is presumed to act with full knowledge of the facts upon which its legislation Is based. This Is undoubtedly true. but when it is assumed from that, that it's judgment upon these facts is not subject to investigation. the inference is carried too far. Doubtless, upon mere questions of policy, it's conclu- sions are beyond judicial consideration. Courts may not inquire whether any given act is wise or unwise, and only when such act trespasses upon the vested rights may the courts intervene. A single illustration will make this matter clear: It is within the competency of the leg islature to determine when and what property shall be taken for public uses. That question is one of policy over which the courts have no jurisdiction; but If, after determining that certain property shall be taken for public uses, the leg islature proceeds further and declares that only certain price shall be paid for it. then the owner may challenge the validity of that part of the act may contend that his property is taken with out due compensation, and the legislative determination of value does not preclude an investigation in the proper judicial tribunals The same principle applies when vested rights of property are dis turbed by a legislative enactment in respect to rates.
 'M. l.. STONE General Counsel Louisville and Nashville
 Railroad companya."i
 Montgomery, November p. 1907.