M,COY v. c., 1., sr. L. a o. 12. oo. 7
it in their power to extort the utmost farthing which such intermedi-
ate business is capable of bearing. Those who have _them in charge
can organize side or collateral business enterprises, and so manipulate
their roads as to seriously cripple their competitors and add to their
own profits. These are but some of the possibilities incident to·raiI‘-
roadmanagement. Nevertheless, with allrtheir capacity forinjus- _
tice, they cannot be dispensed with. But are their duties and
J obligations to individuals and to the public to be measured by the fj udg·
ment of therinterested partiesgusing them t0· further their own self- '
ish schemes, or by the courts? - And if bythe latter, to what extent
may the courtstgo in supervising their actions and in restraining
abuses? i Theseare grave questions, which we will now endeavor to
answer .‘is A 7--   V  i` - ‘ T
The great‘and‘fundamental’ principle on which we rest the conclu- _
sions hereinafter stated is theconceded fact that railroad corporations
are quasi public corporations dedicated to_the public use. It is upon this
idea that they have been invested with the power of eminent domain,-—
the authority to take and appropriate private property to their use by .
paying a just compensation therefor. They have -been created for
the purpose of exercising the functions and performing the duties of
common carriers. Their duties and liabilities are d•ned by law.
In acceptingtheir charters they necessarily accept them with all the
duties and liabilities annexed; that is to say, they undertake to con-
struct the roads contemplated by their several charters; to keep them ‘ '
in good condition; equip them with suitable rolling stock and safe
machinery; employ skilled and trustworthy laborers; provide suitable
means of access to and egressrfrom their trains; erect depots and
designate stopping·places wherever the public necessities require ,
them; supply, to the extent of their resources, necessary and ade-
quate facilities for the transaction of all the business offered; deal
fairly and impartially with their patrons; keep pace with improve-
ments in railroad machinery, and adapt their service to the varying
necessities andimprovedmethods of doing business. »
The granting and acceptance of such charter createsa quasi public
trust, and clothes the public with an interest in the use of arailroads,
which can be controlled by the public to the extent of the interest
granted therein. Munn v. Illin0is,~94 U. S. 126 to 134, inclusive.
But how and by whom can this quasi public trust be administered ?
The defendant insists that relief cannot be given by this court.
The contention is that all persons injured in their property or per-
sons by the wrongful action or non-action of a railroad corporation