RATES. The effect of the commerce clause of the federal constitution and of the interstate commerce act must always be con sidered in the treatment of rates. That branch of the subject will be found under INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, but some cases are here given.
State control over rates has been exercised as follows: Bridges; Canada Southern Ry. Co. v. Bridge Co., 8 Fed. 190. See Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 14 Sup. Ct. 1087, 38 L. Ed. 962. Ferries; Chosen Freeholders of Hudson Co. v. State, 24 N. J. L. 718, where the charter subjected the ferry company to such regulations as might be fixed by law. Boom Companies; West Branch Lumbermen's Exch. v. Fisher, 150 Pa. 475, 24 At]. 735; Henry v. Roberts, 50 Fed. 902. Gas Companies; Madison v. Gas & El. Co., 129 Wit 249, 108 N. W. 65, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 529, 9 Ann. Cas. 819; Toledo v. Gas Co., 5 Ohio C. C. 557, 3 0. C. D. 273 (natural gas) ; State v. Gas L. & C. Co., 34 Ohio St. 572, 32 Am. Rep. 390. See 27 Am. L. Reg. 286. Mills for Grinding; State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 29 Atl. 947, 25 L. Rtiki 504, 41 Am. St. Rep. 528 ; West v. Rawson', 40 W. Va. 480, 21 S. E. 1019. Railroads; Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. Ed. 176 ; Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dey, 82 Ia. 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477; State v. R. Co., 22 Neb. 313, 35 N. W. 118 ; In re Senate Bill No. 69, 15 Colo. 601, 26 Pac. 157 ; Ames v. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. 165 (where the company was incorporat ed by an act of congress). Railways, Street; Sternberg v. State, 36 Neb. 307, 54 N. W. 553, 19 L. R. A. 570 (by ordinance) ; Buffalo E. S. R. Co. v. R. Co., 111 N. Y. 132, 19 N. E. 63, 2 L. R. A. 284. Stock Yards; see Cotting v. Stock-Yards Co., 82 Fed. 850. Telegraphs; Leavell v. Tel. Co., 116 N. C. 211, 21 S. E. 391, 27 L. R. A. 843, 47 Am. St. Rep. 798. Telephones; Hackett v. State, 105 Ind. 250, 5 N. E. 178, 55 Am. Rep. 201; Central U. Tel. Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194, 19 N. E. 604, 10 Am. St. Rep. 114 ; Id., 118 Ind. 598, 20 N. E. 145. See St. Louis v. Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 623,
10 S. W. 197, 2 L. R. A. 278, 9 Am. St. Rep. 370 ; Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v R. Com mission of Louisiana, 156 Fed. 823; Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 155 Fed. 554. Water; Spring Valley W. Works v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347, 4 Sup. Ct. 48, 28 L. Ed. 173. Warehouses; for grain, etc., requiring them to keep insured for the benefit of its owner of grain stores ; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 14 Sup. Ct. 857, 38 L. Ed. 757. Electric Light Companies; Armour Packing Co. v. Illuminating Co., 115 App. Div. 51, 100 N. Y. Supp. 605.
This power cannot be delegated to private persons or corporations; Attorney General v. R. Co., 160 Mass. 62, 35 N. E. 252, 22 L. R. A. 112 ; Stimson v. Booming Co., 100 Mich. 350, 59 N. W. 142. An act fixing minimum rates for railroad freight and passenger fares does not apply to the transportation of messengers and freight of express companies; Texas Exp. Co. v. R. Co., 6 Fed. 426.
The authority of a city under a street railway charter to fix the rates of fare there on is exhausted by fixing such rates in an ordinance granting it the use of the streets ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Atlanta, 83 Fed. 39.
The right to regulate railroad rates is one of the powers of the state, inherent in every sovereignty, to be exercised by the legisla ture at its pleasure and one legislature can not, by a charter granted to a railroad com pany though for a valuable consideration, confer on such railroad company the right to charge rates which shall be beyond the con trol of subsequent legislatures ; Laurel Fork & S. H. R. Co. v. Transp. Co., 25 W. Va. 324; it rests upon the police power ; In re Arkan sas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 290. A state may regulate in the absence of congressional ac tion ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. R. Commis sion of Alabama, 208 Fed. 35.
A state requiring connecting lines to re ceive and carry all freight coming from their connections at rates fixed by the railroad com mission is not an unlawful violation of liber ty of contract ; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Big ham (Tex.) 47 S. W. 814.