Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/207

CANADA SOUTHERN BY. 00. V. INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CO. 193 �anything had been done by the bridge company towards the con- struction of the bridge ; and it was undoubtedly passed when it was in order that the company might know in advance what terms con- gress would require as the condition of its sanction to the undertaking. Neither can the constitutionality ef the act be successfully assailed upon the theory that the power to fix tolls is a legislative power which cannot be delegated. Concededly, congress could not delegate its legislative powers or confer authority upon this court to exercise any but judicial functions; but the act can be upheld as one which deyolves the merely judicial function upon the court of determining the rights of parties when they may be brought into controversy after congress bas created and defined the right. If the act provides for a determination of the terms and conditions upon which the railway companies may use the bridge in case the parties fall to agree, inas- much as this determination is committed by the act to a judicial tribunal upon hearing the proofa and allegations of the parties, the inference is cogent that the tribunal is to proceed according to the set- tled principles which controj judicial action ; it is not to exercise an arbitrary discretion but a judicial discretion ; it is to ascertain the rights of the parties by evidence, and to adjudicate upon them under the sanctions of precedent and in conformity with established rules of law. It is no less the exercise of judicial functions to prescribe a rule of future conduct, or protect the existence of a right in the future, than it is to determine whether the right bas been invaded in the past. It is one of the prominent oifices of courts of equity to do this. While there are intrinsie difi&culties of a grave nature in dealing with such a question of fact as would require to be de- cided, the inquiry after all would only be as to what would be rea- sonable compensation to the bridge company for the use of their property. �The more difQcult inquiry relates to the true interpretation of the act, and whether it conf ers any broader authority upon the court than that of regulating the terms and conditions to which the bridge com- pany shall submit in enforcing the equal rights of the several railway companies to the use of the property. In view of the fact that the bridge to be built was to be not only an erection which might inter- fere with commerce upon a public, navigable river, but was to be a highway of commerce 43etween the eastern and western states which might seek the shorter route through Canada, it was reasonable to expect that the protection of that commerce would find recognition at v.8,no.4— 13 ��� �