Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1912-01-04

ment to condemn a rod of land, one
OF the highest attributes of sover-
eighty. The railway corporation Is
invested with the powers Of the SOW
ereign because it is a trustee and
agent of the sovereign and, there
fore, must exercise it's public func-
tions under the supervision of its su-
perior. Its public duties are minis
terial-namely to carry out the OBJ
jects of its creation with reference to
what public necessity and conven-
ience require and the right to COM
pei this must Of necessity reside in
its creator-the state.
The duty Of railway corporation
to provide reasonable facilities for
the transportation of passengers and
freight is one which always existed
and not one created by statute. The
statute only provides a method by
which these pre-existing duties may
be enforced The court we'll stated
in Ptttsburg G. c. & st. L. Ry. Co. v.
Hunt, Qnd) So N. E. 333, that "In
one sense of the term appellants
property Is private, and as such 1t is
within the protection of the federal
and state constitutions; but such
property is subject to due regulation,
sice 1t has been devoted to a public
use, particularly since that use Is, in
a limited sense of the term, for the
purpose of a public highway. Lake
superior, ETC., R. Co. " United States,
SO U. S. 442, % L. Ed. 965. AS was
said In Barton v. Barbour, 1O4 U. s.
l26, 135, rs L. Ed. 672; A railroad
is authorized to be constructed more
for the public good to be subserved
that for private gain. AS a highway
for public transportation, 1t is a mat
ter of public concern, and its con-
struction and management belong pri-
marily to the commonwealth, and are
only put into private lands to sub
serve the public convenience and
economy; but the public retain rights
OF vast consequence in the road and
It's appendage with which neither the
company nor any creditor or mort
gagee can interfere. They take their
rights subject to the rights of the
public, and must be content to enjoy
them in subordination thereto. While
railroad companies are chartered for
the purpose of affording due facilities
OF transportation, yet at the common
law there are certain obligations of
an imperfect character which have
been left to such carriers, upon the
presumption that their business in
terests will cause them sufficiently to
discharge such duties, as in the
building of interchange freight
tracks, the erection of depots, and
the like. 1t is clear, however. that
the legislature, which possesses the
right to make all manner of reason
able and wholesome laws within con-
stitutional limits, may, to the extent
OF that which is reasonable, convert
such imperfect obligations into abso-
lutte legal duties" See also, State
v. R. V. R. Co. II Neb. 647; Missouri
o. & G. Ry. V. State, (Okla) 113 Pac
$50; Railroad Commission V. Port
land & o. c, R. Co., SO Me. 269: Rail-
road Com. " Kansas City So. Ry., III
La. 1874; 80 So. 4S7; Pecos & N. r.
Ry. Co. V. Railroad Commission, 1O2
Tex. AIS; 12O S. W. 1855.
The second proposition, that con-
ceding that the power to compel a
railway corporation to install new
facilities exists, the legislature has
not delegated it to the commission, is
in our opinion, negatived by the
terms of the act Sec. 12 of Chap. SO
Laws 1907 (Sec. 6SS7 L. o. L. re-
quires every railroad to furnish "rea-