Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/365

337 FEDERAL RESTRAINTS. 337 portation of interstate traffic, whether of passengers or freight. And such would be the case, if the Federal interstate commerce act were repealed. IV. State Regulation of State Rates of Fare and Freight. It remains to inquire whether, in the absence of a restriction upon the powers of a State by virtue of the commerce clause of the Constitution, there is any other restriction under the Constitu- tion which can control such powers of the State, and here again there will be seen a gradual shifting away from the earlier deci- sions of the court, and a perceptible extension in the interpretation of the powers of the nation. Firsts with regard to the provisions of the Fourteenth A^nendmejit to the Constitution relating to due process of law, and the equal pro- tection of the laws. It was held, in Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Co. v. lowa,^ that, whenever the legislature saw fit to prescribe the maxi- mum charge, the reasonableness of that charge could not be in- quired into, but was finally determined by the act of the legislature. The court said, speaking of a railroad as a common carrier: — sonable sum for the carriage. In the absence of any legislative regulation upon the subject, the courts must decide for it, as they do for private persons, when controversies arise, what is reasonable. But when the legislature steps in, and prescribes a maximum of charge, it operates upon this corporation the same as it does upon individuals engaged in a similar business. [That is to say, it is conclusive. Munn v. lUinois, 94 U. S. 113.] It was within the power of the company to call upon the legislature to fix permanently this limit, and make it a part of the charter ; and, if it was refused, to abstain from building the road and establishing the contemplated business. If that had been done, the charter might have presented a contract against future legislative inter- ference. But it was not ; and the company invested its capital, rely- ing upon the good faith of the people and the wisdom and impartiality of legislators for protection against wrong under the form of legislative regulation." Peik V. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.^ expressed a simi- lar doctrine, holding as follows : — 1 94 U. S. 155. 2 94U. S. 164.
 * ' It must carry when called upon to do so, and can charge only a rea-