The power of the United States to regulate commerce among the states is a very broad power, and a corporation owning a bridge may be compelled to alter it so as not to obstruct navigation, without compensation for the amount necessarily expended in making the alterations. In that case the Supreme Court of the United States announced its views on the subject as follows: "Although the bridge, when erected under the authority of a Pennsylvania charter, may have been a lawful structure, and although it may not have been an unreasonable obstruction to commerce and navigation as then carried on, it must be taken, under the cases cited, and upon principle, not only that the company when exerting the power conferred upon it by the State, did so with knowledge of the paramount authority of Congress to regulate commerce among the States, but that it erected the bridge subject to the possibility that Congress might, at some future time, when the public interest demanded, exert its power by appropriate legislation to protect navigation against unreasonable obstructions." 52 But it is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce to discharge an employee simply because of his membership in a labor organization.53 § 4369. Interstate Commerce Commission. The Interstate Commerce Commission, created by Congress, is an administrative board which exercises administrative powers but has no judicial power although it does have quasi judicial power. Its jurisdiction is strictly statutory and cannot be extended beyond the terms of the statute creating it and its amendments. The commission has no jurisdiction. over street railroad companies,54 except to a limited extent in the District of Columbia.55 Formerly, express companies were not within its jurisdiction but now it is expressly provided that the term "common carrier" as used in the act creating the commission shall include express companies. Pipe line companies, except those conveying water or gas, are brought within its jurisdiction by the 1906 amendment; and by the 1910 amendment telegraph, telephone and cable L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917 E 938, and see 4429, infra. 52 Union Bridge Co. V. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 400, 51 L. Ed. 523. 53 Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 52 L. Ed. 436, 13 Ann. Cas. 764. 54 Omaha & C. B. St. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 230 U. S. 324, 57 L. Ed. 1501, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 385. 55 Capital Traction Co. v. King, 44 App. Cas. (D. C.) 315. companies engaged in sending interstate messages are within its jurisdiction. Among the powers of the commission are the power to require reports and a uniform system of accounting by carriers,56 the power to regulate rates,57 the power to prevent unjust discriminations between individual shippers or localities,58 etc. §4370. State legislature-In general. A state, through its legislature, may regulate all corporations, without regard to their nature or whether engaged in more or less public service, in the exercise of its police power, just the same as it may regulate an individual, except in so far as the power to regulate is precluded by constitutional provisions or by provisions in the charter or franchise. A further and more extensive power to regulate exists, however, including the power to regulate rates, where the purposes to which the property of the corporation is devoted are affected with a public interest.59 However, this power is subject to the constitutional restrictions against interference with interstate commerce,60 the taking of property without due process of law,61 the denial of equal protection of the laws,62 and the impairment of contracts.63 § 4371. State control over corporations created by Congress. Corporations created by Congress are subject to state legislation subject to the limitation that the agencies of the federal government are exempted from state legislation so far as it may interfere with or impair their efficiency in performing the functions by which they are designed to serve the federal government.64 This question often 56 Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 423, 58 L. Ed. 296, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1. 57 See § 4477, infra. 58 United States v. Louisiana & P. R. Co., 234 U. S. 1, 58 L. Ed. 1185. 59 See 84478, infra. The power of the legislature to exercise reasonable regulation and control over public utilities has been well settled ever since the noted decision of Munn v. Illinois in the Supreme Court of the United States. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 126, 24 L. Ed. 77, aff'g 69 Ill. 80. "This decision has become one of the landmarks of American law, and has been VII Priv. Corp.-22 frequently cited, followed and ap- 60 See §§ 4392, 4393, infra. 64"It is only when the State law incapacitates the [national] banks from discharging their duties to the government that it becomes unconstitutional." National Bank v. Com., 9 Wall. (U. S.) 353, 362, 19 L. Ed. 701. arises in connection with the power of a state to tax corporations created by Congress.& 65 ** § 4372. Power to delegate authority. Judge McQuillin, in his valuable work on Municipal Corporations, lays down the rule as to delegation of the police power of the state to municipalities as follows: "The police power primarily inheres in the state, but if the state constitution does not forbid, the legislature may delegate a part of such power to the municipal corporations of the state, either in express terms or by implication. In the absence of constitutional inhibition, the legislature may resume at any time the authority which it has delegated to a municipal corporation; for example, the power to regulate and control the public rights in the streets. The municipality may exercise power concurrently with the state, but ordinances in conflict with statutes are void, unless expressly authorized." 66 So far as public service corporations are concerned, much of the police power in regard thereto is now delegated to public service. commissions, and the constitutionality of such delegations of power has been almost universally upheld.67 However, the legislature cannot wholly surrender its police power to a public service commission.68 § 4373. State commissions. Public service commissions now exist in most of the states, and they have power to regulate public service corporations included within the statute creating the commission,69 to the extent that jurisdiction is conferred upon them by the statute.70 § 4374. Municipalities. The power of municipalities to regulate corporations depends upon how far the police power has been conferred upon the municipality by the state. Generally its power is at least coextensive with the authority to exercise the police power as affecting individuals, and its power to regulate the use of its streets includes extensive power over public service companies whose business requires them to in some way use the streets of the municipality. Moreover, a municipality, although having no authority to prevent the use of its streets by a public service company, has authority under its general police power to regulate the manner in which the State interference with or control of national banks, see 3 Ruling Case Law, § 287. 65 Infra, chapter on Taxation. 663 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 894. 67 See § 4381, infra. 68 Public Service Commission V. Helena, 52 Mont. 527, 159 Pac. 24. 69 What corporations are within such statutes, see § 4379, infra. 70 See § 4384, infra. tracks, lines or pipes shall be constructed and maintained." But provisions in freeholders' charters giving the power to regulate public service companies are invalid so far as in conflict with the power of regulation conferred by statute upon the public service com mission.72 III. CORPORATIONS SUBJECT TO REGULATION § 4375. General rules. All corporations are subject to the police power of the state or municipality the same as natural persons.73 However, certain corporations are subject to more extensive regulation merely because of the public nature of their business.74 § 4376. Corporations whose business is affected with a public interest-In general. The basis of the rule under consideration is the statement of Chief Justice Waite in the celebrated case of Munn v. Illinois, 75 which is as follows: "Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created." However, as stated by Justice Pitney in a dissenting opinion in a late case, this opinion "made it plain that the interest of the public was not in the property, but in the use of it; that not its management or disposition in general, but only the manner of its use in the service of the public, was subject to control." 76 This rule has never been departed from since it was laid down, and has been applied to the business of many corporations as well as that no telephone wire should be stretched across any street without the consent of the township committee was neither a "regulation" nor a "restriction." 72 State v. Public Service Commission, 270 Mo. 429, 198 S. W. 872, 192 S. W. 958. 73 See § 4360, supra. 75 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77. 76 Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 385, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917 E 57 N. J. Eq. 123, 41 Atl. 146, 938. holding that ordinance providing that of individuals. There has been a difference of opinion, however, among the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, as to the circumstances or conditions under which some kinds of property or business may be properly held to be thus affected with a public use, but the tendency is in favor of upholding regulations upon the theory that particular lines of business are affected with a public interest. The rule herein laid down as to the power to regulate a business affected with a public use is not limited to cases in which the owner has a legal monopoly or some special governmental privileges but extends to certain other kinds of business which hold such a peculiar relation to the public interest that there is imposed upon them the right of public regulation." Furthermore, the test of whether the use is public is not "whether a public trust is imposed upon the property and whether the public has a legal right to the use which cannot be denied"; 78 and it has been said that the decisions "demonstrate that a business, by circumstances and its nature, may rise from private to be of public concern and be subject, in consequence, to governmental regulation." 79 So the presence or absence of a requirement as to a license is immaterial in determining whether a business is affected with a public interest.80 Corporations whose business is affected with a public interest, within the rule laid down above, so as to be subject to more extended governmental control, including the regulation of rates, include railroad companies,8 81 street railroad companies,82 express companies,83 public ferry companies,84 public moving van companies,85 77 People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 5 L. R. A. 559, 15 Am. St. Rep. 460, 22 N. E. 670, aff'd 143 U. S. 517, 36 L. Ed. 247, and see §§ 4464-4466, infra, in regard to rates. 78 German Alliance Ins. Co. V. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 407, 58 L. Ed. 1011, L. R. A. 1915 C 1189. 79 Id. 80 People v. Steele, 231 Ill. 340, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 361, 121 Am. St. Rep. 321, 83 N. E. 236. 81 Speaking of a railroad company, the court said: "It is a private corporation created for public purposes, and its property is to a large extent devoted to public uses. It is, therefore, subject to legislative control so far as its business affects the public interests." Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 719, 25 L. Ed. 496. 82 Sternberg v. State, 36 Neb. 307, 19 L. R. A. 570, 54 N. W. 553; Buffalo East Side R. Co. v. Buffalo St. R. Co., 111 N. Y. 132, 2 L. R. A. 284, 19 N. E. 63. 83 State v. Pacific Exp. Co., 80 Neb. 823, 829, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 664, 115 N. W. 619. 84 Port Richmond & B. P. Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, 234 U. S. 317, 58 L. Ed. 1330, aff'g 82 N. J. L. 536, 82 Atl. 729; Hudson County Chosen Freeholders v. State, 24 N. J. L. 718; People v. New York, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 102. 85 Lawson v. Judge of Recorder's Court, City of Detroit, 175 Mich. 375, |