Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/476

 DINBMOBE V. L., 0. <& L. BY. 00. 469 �pies settled by judicial decisions is that railroad companies, as common carriers, are bound to the extent of their corporate means to supply ail the accommodations and facilities de- manded by the regular and ordinary business of the eountry through which they pass. Eailroad carriage has, in a large measure, suspended every other means of inland transporta- tion. Everybody, whether they wili or not, is forced to pat- ronize them. And as they were oreated to subserve the public good, and undertook to carry persons and property, they are, if able, bound to supply every facility needed for that purpose. They must keep pace with improvements in machinery, furnish easy access to and egress from their trains, stop at convenient points for the admission and exit of passengers, make adequate provision and tender suitable cars to carry on the business ofîered, and generally to carry passengers and freight, and from time to time adapt their rolling stock and equipments to the varying necessities of advancing civilization and approved methods of doing busi- ness. and next in importance to this leading idea is the obligation to do exact and even-handed justice to everybody offering to do business with them. If derelict in the per- formance of any one of the obligations imposed by law, they may be quickened thereto by the mandatory power of the courts, or compelled to surrender their franchise, which they thus refuse or neglect to exercise in the spirit of their several charters. �But defendants deny that any one or ail of the foregoing familiar principles reach and control the question in this case. Its position, as we understand it, is that, notwithstanding it is a qîMsi public instrumentality, it is also private property belonging to defendant, and that it is ready, able and willing, and now otfers, to render to the public every service which the public has a right to demand, including the carriage of express matter over its road, and protests that complainant has no legal right to use its road against its wishes and in the man- ner claimed, and by a forced use thereof enter into competi- tion with it in the carriage and delivery of express freights. At first blush this position seems to be well taken, but on ����