...power to fix any charge that will be unreasonable and not furnish proper compensation to the carrier. Under pretense of regulating fares and freights the state cannot require a railroad company to carry persons or property Brief for appellant. without reward, neither can it do that which...

...cases) that the power of the legislature to fix rates was not without limit; that the power to regulate is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the equivalent of confiscation, and that the question of the reasonableness of a rate is a question for judicial investigation requiring...

...of carriage." See also Railroad Commission Cases, 116 US 307, 325, 331, wherein the Court said that "the state cannot require a railroad corporation to carry persons or property without reward ; ' ' Dow v. Beidelman, 125 US 680, 689; Georgia Railroad and Banking Co. v Smith, 128 US 174, 179...

...inferred that this power of limitation or regulation is itself without limit. This power to regulate is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the equivalent of confiscation. Under pretence of regulating fares and freights, the State cannot require a railroad corporation to carry...

...inferred that this power or limitation or regulation is itself without limit. This power to regulate is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the...equivalent of confiscation. Under pretense of regulating freights and fares, the state cannot require a railroad corporation to carry persons or property without...

...that "it is not to be inferred that this power of limitation or regulation is itself without limit Under pretense of regulating fares and freights, the...carry persons or property without reward; neither cannot it do that which in law amounts to a taking of private property for public use, without just...

...now acceded, and Justice Blatchford, for the majority, wrote, "This power to regulate [police power] is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the equivalent of confiscation." i456.l And confiscation, or the reasonableness of a rate, "is eminently a question for judicial investigation,...

...rates, but they cautioned that such authority was not unlimited. Chief Justice Waite observed that "the State cannot require a railroad corporation to...without just compensation, or without due process of law."5 Simultaneously the Supreme Court began to formulate a substantive interpretation of the due...

...inferred that this power of limitation or regulation is itself without limit. This power to regulate is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the equivalent of confiscation. Under pretence of regulating fares and freights, the State cannot require a railroad corporation to carry...

...within which such regulation would be evaluated. Eight years later, for instance, the Court said that "the State cannot require a railroad corporation to...without just compensation, or without due process of law."26 And in that same term, Waite announced that no argument was necessary on the question of whether...