Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/495

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 476A. power of the company to call upon the legislature to fix per- manently this limit, and make it a part of the charter ; and, if it was refused, to abstain from building the road and estab- lishing the contemplated business. If that had been done, the charter might have presented a contract against future legislative interference. But it was not ; and the company invested its capital, relying upon the good faith of the people and the wisdom and impartiality of legislators for protection against wrong under the form of legislative regulation." l § 476 b. The Federal Supreme Court has recently held that when legislation establishes a tariff of rates so unreasonable as practically to destroy the value of the property of companies engaged in the carrying business, courts may treat the question as a judicial one, and may hold such acts to be in conflict with the Federal constitution, as depriving the companies of their property without due process of law, and as depriving them of the equal protection of the laws. 2 Moreover, when power has 1 Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 161, 162; opinion of court per Waite, C. J. These remarks are authoritative. Accord, Peik v. Chi- cago, etc., Ry. Co., 94 U. S. 164; Chi- cago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U. S. 179; Ruggles v. State of Illinois, 108 U. S. 526; Dow ». Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. u. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339; Blake v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418; aff'd sub nom. Winona, etc., R. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180; Illi- nois Cent. R. R. Co. v. People, 95 111. 313; City of Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139. Cf. Reagan v. L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362. In the absence of legislation by Congress, the power of the state to regulate charges within its borders extends to railroads in- corporated by the United States, Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. A license tax upon grain elevators situ- ated along the railroads was sus- tained in Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452. And the state may attach a penalty for taking more tolls than allowed by statute. State of Minn. v. Winona, etc., R. R. Co., 19 Minn. 434; Mobile & M. Ry. Co. v. Steiuer, 61 Ala. 559. Compare Chi- ago & A. R. R. Co. v. People, 67 111. 11; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. People, 105 111. 236. But such a penalty cannot constitutionally be at- tached to past acts and omissions. Wilson v. Ohio, etc., Ry. Co., 64 111. 542. A statute establishing a com- mission to regulate railroad charges, and making its decisions final and giving the railroad companies no op- portunity for a judicial hearing was held to be unconstitutional in Chi- cago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418. 2 Railway Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649; Covington, etc., T. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, holding that the reason- ableness of the rates must be deter- mined without reference to interstate business. The reasonableness of the charges is to be determined by the fair value of the property of the cor- 475