which are not prohibited, if they be consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. Where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the government, for the courts to undertake to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative grounds."7

§ 46.

Charter Rights of Corporations.-The provisions of the charter of a railroad or other corporation does not constitute a contract.28 Such charter is taken and held subject to the power of the state to regulate and control the grant in the interest of the public," and the state may repeal, alter, or amend the law under which the charter granted was governed and the franchise exercised; the charter right is not a contract-interest protected by the federal constitution prohibiting the impairment of contracts.30 Therefore, the power granted to the board of directors of a railroad or other public corporation to make by-laws, rules and regulations for the management of its affairs, subject to, and in conformity with, the laws of the state, does not have the effect to exempt the company from the operation of laws subsequently enacted, when such laws are within the scope of legis

27 See McCullock v. Maryland, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 415, 421, 423, 4 L. ed. 579; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 283, 293, 12 Sup. Ct. 622, 626, 36 L. ed. 429; Boske v. Comingore, 177 U. S. 459, 468, 20 Sup. Ct. 705, 44 L. ed. 847.

28 Georgia R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 70 Ga. 694; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262, 30 Sup. Ct. 330, 54 L. ed. 472.

29 State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 494, 92 Pac. 606; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 22 Sup. Ct. 95, 46 L. ed. 292.

30 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262, 30 Sup. Ct. 330, 54 L. ed. 472.

See, also, notes, 26 L. ed. U. S. Rep. 961, 77 C. C. A. 281.

lative power, for the purpose of regulating the business in which such company is authorized to engage." Acts of incorporation granting exclusive privileges are to be strictly construed, and what is not expressly given therein, or necessarily implied therefrom, is withheld." The act establishing a Railroad Commission, and empowering it to regulate and fix rates for the carriage of passengers and property, does not in any way impair the obligation of the contract in the charter of a railroad company.3

33

§ 47. Delegation of Power by Legislation-Generally. While it is true that, except as to where authorized by the constitution, the legislature cannot delegate the legislative power,-cannot confer upon any body or person the power to determine what shall be the law, because the legislature alone is empowered to determine what the law shall be; " yet an act

34

31 Stone v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 374, 1191, 29 L. ed. 636.

As to extent of state control over railroads, etc., see note, 29 L. ed. U. S. Rep. 636.

The granting to a railroad company the right, "from time to time, to fix, regulate and receive the toll and charges" to be received by it, merely confers the power to fix reasonable charges, leaving the state free, within the limits of its general authority, to declare what shall be deemed reasonable charges for the services rendered. State v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 374, 1191, 29 L. ed. 636; Corporation Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191, 115 Am. St. Rep. 636, affirmed in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. 585, 51 L. ed. 933.

32 Georgia R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 70 Ga. 694.

83 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 37 N. E. 247. 84 State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 9 N. W. 373, affirmed and applied in State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 38 Minn. 281, 27 N. W. 782, and reversed on another point in Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Munn, 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 702, 33 L. ed. 970; but that portion of the decision relating to the question of what is and what is not a delegation of legislative power has never been questioned, and is still the law of the state of Minnesota. State v. Great Northern R. Co., 100 Minn. 445, 111 N. W. 289; Anderson v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co., 59 Minn.

35

creating a Board of Railroad Commissioners and empowering them to fix rates may properly be passed, because it does not constitute a delegation to such a board of legislative power. The legislature, in the exercise of its power to regulate and control public corporations, such as railroads and other common carriers, may delegate to a Board of Railroad Commissioners certain functions which are administrative in their character, and which cannot well be performed by the legislature itself.

§ 48.

36

Want of Constitutional Provision.The fact that the constitution of a state does not specifically provide for the creation of a Board of Railroad Commissioners does not make an act creating such a board invalid, the subjects upon which the legislature may enact laws not being enumerated in the constitution.37 The constitution of the United

182, 60 N. W. 1095, 63 N. W. 241, 50 Am. St. Rep. 400, 28 L. R. A. 689; State v. Copeland, 66 Minn. 322, 69 N. W. 27, 61 Am. St. Rep. 410, 34 L. R. A. 777; State v. Wagoner, 77 Minn. 501, 80 N. W. 633, 1134, 77 Am. St. Rep. 680, 46 L. R. A. 442; Mague v. Board of County Commissioners, 84 Minn. 472, 88 N. W. 6.

35 State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 92 Pac. 606.

See, also, supra, footnote 8, this chapter.

36 State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 92 Pac. 606.

The liberty of contract guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the federal constitution is not impaired by the Interstate Commerce Act; and by parity of reasoning the right of contract of a railroad or other corporation, person or association will not be impaired by a state statute appointing a Railroad Commission or other body and empowering it to fix rates, etc. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 31 Sup. Ct. 164, 55 L. ed. 167.

37 State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 92 Pac. 606.

Specific provisions in the constitution are not essential to enable the legislature of the state to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers which the constitution fixes in the state government, or in any department or officer thereof. See Minneapolis,

States does not mention a federal Commission, but Congress, under the commerce clause in the federal constitution, has created one, the validity of which act has been repeatedly upheld by the federal courts."

38

§ 49. Authority to Delegate as to Acts not Legislative. While it is true that the legislature may not delegate those powers which are strictly legislative, it may delegate authority to perform certain functions which are administrative in character, and which cannot well be performed by the legislature." St. P. & Ste. Marie R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 136 Wis. 146, 116 N. W. 915.

The creation of a Board of Railroad Commissioners is not void, even in those cases in which the constitution does not specifically provide for the creation of such a body. State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 92 Pac. 606.

38 State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 92 Pac. 606.

39 The following authorities, and many others that might be cited, sustain this doctrine: See Georgia R. Co. v. Smith et al., Railroad Commission, 70 Ga. 694; State ex rel. Taylor v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 76 Kan. 467, 480, 92 Pac. 606; State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 38 Minn. 281, 37 N. W. 782; State v. Freemont, E. & M. O. R. Co., 22 Neb. 313, 35 N. W. 118; Express Co. v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 111 N. C. 463, 16 S. E. 393; Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. v. Commissioners, 1 Ohio St. 77; Railroad Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 71 S. C. 130, 50 S. E. 641; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. ed. 94; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24 L. ed. 97; Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. ed. 99; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181, 24 L. ed. 102; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U. S. 197, 24 L. ed. 99; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 2 Sup. Ct. 382, 27 L. ed. 812; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 541, 2 Sup. Ct. 839, 27 L. ed. 818; Stone v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 1191, 29 L. ed. 636; Stone v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 116 U. S. 347, 6 Sup. Ct. 348, 1191, 29 L. ed. 650; Stone v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co., 116 U. S. 352, 6 Sup. Ct. 349, 29 L. ed. 651; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 8 Sup. Ct. 1028, 31 L. ed. 841; Charlotte etc. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386, 12 Sup. Ct. 255, 35 L. ed. 1051; Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. Wellinau, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. ed. 176; Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co., 161 U. S. 646, 16 Sup. Ct. 705, 40 L. ed. 838; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. 900, 46 L. ed. 1151; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53, 24 Sup. Ct. 396,

It has been well said that "half the statutes on our books are in the alternative, depending upon the discretion of some person or board to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing them. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law." 40 The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what the law shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to the execution of the law, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be raised."1

§ 50. Delegation as to Details and Enforcement. The reasonableness of rates charged by common carriers depends upon circumstances, and as legislatures cannot be continually in session to consider and pass upon these circumstances, the requirements that the statute itself shall fix the charges might preclude the legislature from the use of the agencies necessary to perform the duties imposed upon it by the constitution. In other words, the legislature may authorize others to do things which it might properly be inconvenient or disadvantageous for it to do itself. The extent of the authority of the legis

42

48 L. ed. 612; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Drainage Commission, 200 U. S. 561, 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. ed. 596; Atlantic Coast Line v. Florida, 203 U. S. 256, 27 Sup. Ct. 108, 51 L. ed. 174; Seaboard Air Line Co. v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 27 Sup. Ct. 109, 51 L. ed. 261; Atlantic Coast Line Co. v. North Carolina Corporate Commission, 204 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. 585, 51 L. ed. 933; Tilly v. Railroad Commissioners, 4 Woods, 427, 5 Fed. 641.

40 Moers v. City of Reading, 21 Pa. 188, 202. See Locke's Appeals, 72 Pa. 491, 498, 13 Am. Rep. 716.

41 Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. v. Clinton, 1 Ohio St. 77, approved in Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. ed. 294.

42 See Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367, 51 L. ed. 523.