Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/496

 § 476/'. J THE LAW OP PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. been expressly given a railroad company to take tolls in its dis- cretion, without any legislative reservation, the state cannot regulate its tolls and charges, as that would impair the obliga- tion of the contract between the corporation and the state ; and the police power does not extend so far as to impair or destroy a franchise or a power essential to its exercise. 1 But "grants of immunity from legitimate governmental control are never to be presumed. On the contrary, the presumptions are all the other way, and unless an exemption is clearly established the legislature is free to act on all subjects within its general juris- diction, as the public interest may seem to require." 2 Accord- ingly, only w T hen the terms are clear and express will the leg- islature be held to have granted away its rights to regulate tolls. 3 Thus, an amendment in a charter gave the directors of a railroad company power to establish rates of toll as they should by their by-laws determine, but provided that their by- laws should not be repugnant to the laws of the state. It was held that the amendment did not release the company from restrictions upon rates of toll contained in the laws of the state. 4 In this case in a concurring opinion, Harlan, J., said, after re- poration. A railroad cannot issue stock and bonds far in excess of its value, and then impose upon the public the burden of producing a profit thereon. Smyth v. Ames, (supra). See Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. ». Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167; L. & N. Ry. Co. v. K'y, 183 U. S. 503; Steenerson v. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 353. A statute requiring a railroad to issue mileage books at certain rates is invalid. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, followed Beardsley v. N. Y., L. E. & W. Ry. Co., 162 N. Y. 230; cf. Purdy v. Erie R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 42. And a statute so framed as to apply to only one company is invalid. Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. et al., 183 U. S. 79. 1 Phila., W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Bow- ers, 4 Houst. (Del.) 506; Attorney- Gen, i'. Railroad Cos., 35 Wis. 425; 476 Sloan v. Pacific R. R. Co., 61 Mo. 24; Iron R. R. Co. v. Lawrence Furnace Co., 29 O. St. 208; Pingree v. Mich. C. R'y Co., 118 Mich. 314; see Pingry v. Washburn, 1 Aiken (Vt.), 264; semble contra, Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. People, 95 111. 313. 2 Ruggles v. State of Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 531. 3 Railroad ComVs Cases, 116 U. S. 307; Georgia Bkg. Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. People, 95 111. 313; Georgia R. R. v. Smith, 70 Ga. 694; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319; Winchester, etc., T. R. Co. v. Croxton, 98 Ky. 739. Com- pare Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 177 U. S. 558; Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City, 180 U. S. 587; Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368. 4 Ruggles v. State of Illinois, 108 U. S. 526.