Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/672

 €60 FEDERAL EBPORTBB. �sion of smuggled goods, "such possession shall be deemed evidence suffieient to authorize a conviction, unless the de- fendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury," The statute bocks are full of such acts, but it has never been considered that this impairs the right of trial by jury. �But, even if this provision of the act under consideration were unconstitutional, it would not render inoperative the other sections of the statute, from which this provision can be easily removed, and yet leave the main objeet and purpose of the law unimpaired, Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80. �It is next insisted that the raiiroad commissioners' act is unconstitutional, because it violates that declaration of the bill of rights, paragraph 1, § 3, which declares "private prop- erty shall not be taken or damaged for public uses without just and adequate compensation being first paid. " This clause is a regulation of the exercise of the state's right of eminent domain. An act attempting to fix just and reasonable rates of freight and fares upon the raiiroads of the state can hardly be considered as taking or damaging the property of the raii- road for public use. The objeet of the law is to regulate the charges which the corporation may make in the use of its own property for its own purposes. It does not take it or damage it for public use. The act was passed because its passage was expressly enjoined by the constitution. It does not become obnoxious to the constitutional provision under consideration, and become a taking or damaging of private property for public use, because ail the rates fixed are not just and reasonable, or because they are thought so by the rcailroad companies. �Again, the act under consideration is alleged to be uncon- stitutional because obnoxious to paragraph 11, § 1, art. 1, of the constitution, which declares, "Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of the government, and shall be impartial and complete;" and of paragraph 3, § 1, art. 1, which declares that "no person shall be deprived of life, lib- erty, or property without due process of law." When it is remembered that these paragraphs are referred to a law, the ����