342 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. charter of the railroad involved, namely, the Burlington and Mis- souri River Railroad (wholly within Iowa), gave the latter power to contract, in reference to its business, the same as private in- dividuals, and to establish by-laws and make all rules and regula- tions deemed expedient in relation to its affairs, but, on the other hand, subjected the said company at all times to such rules and regulations as the General Assembly of Iowa might see fit to enact. There was no special provision in the charter with reference to the fixing of rates by the railroad company, and the law as applica- ble under the circumstances was laid down as follows : — "This company, in the transaction of its business, has the same rights, and is subject to the same control, as private individuals under the same circumstances. It must carry when called upon to do so, and can charge only a reasonable sum for the carriage. In the absence of any legislative regulation upon the subject, the courts must decide for it, as they do for private persons, when controversies arise, what is reasonable. But when the legislature steps in, and prescribes a maximum of charge, it operates upon this corporation the same as it does upon individuals engaged in a similar business." That is to say, where the grant to contract was general, and there was a power of amendment reserved in the State, a railroad cornpany was subject to regulation by the State with regard to its State rates of fare and freight. In Peik v, Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.,^ the charter provisions of a Wisconsin railroad entitled it ** to demand and receive such sum or sums of money for the transportation of per- sons and property, and for storage of property, as it shall [should] deem reasonable." The Constitution of Wisconsin in force when these provisions were enacted provided for the alteration or repeal by the legislature of all acts for the creation of State corporations. It was held in the decision, that said charter provisions, by their express grant, placed no limitation upon the powers of the State, and that the legislature thereof could prescribe a maximum of charges for the transportation by the corporation of persons or property within the State, or taken up outside the State and brought within, or taken up inside and carried without. Lawrence v. Same ^ presented identically the same question, and was similarly decided. In Winona & St. Peter Railroad Co. v. Blake,^ the railroad com- pany was incorporated as a common carrier, with all the rights, 1 94 U. S. 164. * 2 94 u. S. 164. 8' 94 U. S. 180.
