A railroad corporation is a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819.
A railroad company is a quasi-public cor poration and owes certain duties to the pub lic ; Chicago, M. & St. R. Co. v. Ry. Co., 27 U. S. App. 1, 61 Fed. 993, 9 C. C. A. 659. In Georgia R. & Bank Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 182, 9 Sup. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377, it was said that a railroad company is a private corpo ration though its uses are public. In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819, it was said that a railroad is a public highway and is created for public pur poses.
The duty arising from the ownership of the franchise of a railroad is merely to meet the public requirements, and where the traf fic is not sufficient to pay its operating ex penses, such duty does not require its opera tion, and it may be abandoned ; State v. Jack, 145 Fed. 281, 76 C. C. A. 165.
The charter of a public railroad requires the grant of the supreme legislative author ity of the state; it is usually made to a private corporation, but sometimes upon a public one, where the stock is owned and the company controlled by the state ; Redf. Railw. 17 ; Bradley v. R. Co., 21 Conn. 304 ; Turnpike Co. v. Wallace, 8 Watts (Pa.) 316.
It is sometimes by special act, but now, more commonly, under general laws. A railroad may be chartered by act of congress; Union P. R. Co. v. Lincoln Co., 1 Dill. 314, Fed. Cas. No. 14,378. If created by two states, it is a corporation of each state ; Covington & C. B. Co. v. Mayer, 31 Ohio St. 317. See MERGER. Such charter, when conferred up on a private company or a natural per son, as may be, is, in the absence of consti tutional or statutory provisions to the con trary, irrevocable, and only subject to general legislative control, the same as other persons natural or artificial; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 668, 4 L. Ed. 629; 2 Kent 275 ; Thorpe v. R. Co., 27 Vt. 140, 62 Am. Dec. 625.
The operation of railroads, including the running of trains, is within legislative pow er; it may be delegated in details to an ad ministrative body. This regulation cannot be exercised by the courts; Honolulu R. T. & L. Co. v. Hawaii, 211 U. S. 282, 29 Sup. Ct. 55, 53 L. Ed. 186; such a body is not a court ; Central V. R. Co. v. Redmond, 189 Fed. 683.
See IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CON TRACTS.
But a company must be held to have ac cepted its rights, etc., subject to the condi tion that the legislature may protect the peo ple against the exaction of unreasonable charges for the services rendered by it, sub ject to the constitutional guarantee for the protection of its property ; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819.
An act requiring that all regular passen ger trains shall stop at all railroad stations and county seats is unconstitutional when its effect is to compel a fast interstate mail train to turn aside from its direct route to a county seat three and a half miles away, the company having provided ample accom modations for travel from such county seat ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 143, 16 Sup. Ct. 1096, 41 L. Ed. 107 ; otherwise, if applicable only to trains running within a state ; Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427, 17 Sup. Ct. 627, 41 L. Ed. 1064. An act re quiring railroad companies where there is a telegraph office tp note on a blackboard in each station whether trains are late, etc., and if so, how late, is constitutional ; Pennsyl vania Co. v. State, 142 Ind. 428, 41 N. E. 937.
A state statute which requires railroad companies to provide separate accommoda tions for white and colored persons and makes a passenger who insists upon occupy ing a coach other than the one set apart for his race, liable to a penalty, does not violate either the thirteenth or the fourteenth amendment ; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 Sup. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256.
Their charters are now usually subject to legislative control, either by virtue of a right reserved in the charter or in general laws subject to which they are organized. In ei ther case legislation is binding upon the com pang. But where there is a right to repeal the charter for cause, it cannot be done with out inquiry; Baltimore v. R. Co., 1 Abb. S.) 9, Fed. Cas. No. 827. They are subject to the condition that the legislature may pro tect the people against the exaction of unrea sonable charges for the services rendered by it, but under the constitutional guarantee for the protection of its property ; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819.