, 1873-02-25

ts
nnnitier or locses7 Ne wholly At loss to dis
soyer the slightest difference in reason oF ptlnepc
e Living t thcss 1s 1Fo% foad Is ehd Is
cents per bnshe1 for shiprng his corn to Chieseos -
,ntt ths tie farmer hyrg eney sty nns ms: c
ta;uly not, unless the Railroad Company can show
peculiar statc Of a1ars to justify the dlscEiuatna
lion, tnd this must be something more than ne mere
fsct tat there are competing Ines at point, and
not at the other The discrimination, IN snch caec,
e much discrimination between indivtduaa rs 1t
onld be in reference to two persono living in tho
saa locality and shipping ct the game stion unless,
as before stated ssfaftoFy Teason can De given to5
such rea.on in lie case supposed it IS not very easy
10 conceive.
so too in tbs e:;s he'eEs u.s. The resident Of
her Is cha.9cd By the Company at the rate OF IS per
DO feet for transportation The resident Of Lcxng
.,gad s565 per 1000 feet for transportation 10
1tles less in dtaance Ia there not here, unless
eInIsnation can be furnished by tho Company, un-
tuat discrimination between individuals quito much
within the prohibition Of the principles OF the common
1ay ns would be unjust discrimination between iu-
I;ryd,las of the same town.
vo have crdcavored to show on what = firm founda-
Con rests the constitutional power Of the Legislature
to rohibt unjust Determinations In railway freghts,
.x7 roncedpR what ia claimed for their charters
contracts.
We should however, be doing the counsel for appel
Isn't an injustice il 1t were to be Inferred from what
% have said that they distinctly assert right, the
rrt Of the Company to make unjust determinations.
We understand them to concede, IN the conclusion
1SS6AoAA<AAA
bbt such discrimin.tion but they insist that dis
crsrnation is unjust, The person against whom it
.te They therefore nyerred in their plea to the in
formation that the charges for freight to Lexington
eero in fact, reasonaole. ana those 10 bloomngton
,ct Of the Legislature had direced 1s penalties rs it
shoud haze DONE not sganst Ill DETERMINATIONS but
oply against unjust discriminatons, and had made
1ai lac tssue to he tried, it would have been
vcr to sreE IL The plea that tho larger rates for
hen
to be tried towit tho existence OF an unjust dis
r1iminauon between neighbo1tng towns. wha: is =
reasonable rate Of freight over railroad
pnane great ya5tsy Of completed f.sts
nd which would be wholly In the power Of the COM
oeuy to furnish withhold Railroad experts might
@ who u I wen
be rate tho fact that lese rate WAS charged for
the greater distance, to Bloomington the difference
Ers permanently established and not casual differ
ece and If it could be explained only by the fact that
there as competing line at one place and not at the
other, might be well accepted a. conclusive proof
The only issue to be made, under law properly
framed, would be whether there Tss an unjust dis
the prosecutor proves permanently established dis
,1nation, Ike that discosed by the present record,
End the Company show Other reason for 1t thau
thu existence of competing line at the favored point
he defense must be held notwhstsnd-
= mstter Of theoretical opinion, thst tho rates to
Lexington are reasonable. They cannot be reasonable,
rate for he greater distance Lave been esssb-
Bed, merely because the Company has ceased TO e1-
ercise 1t that point practical monopoly It canno;
be Vosed that either Of the competing nncs would
estsbisNA permanent ratio Of charges upon scale
that WON'T not furnish remnne1ative profit. The
rates to Bloomington would b established under the
influence Of fair competition, which, by the ordinary
lawa that govern commerce. might be relied upon as
establishing 5ate p io~ a. hS1dson 9a
creton Of the Company and it should not cause sur
prise Il they were hred uareasonably high Il the
they are uureasonabiy low It Bloomington, and at all
t.i that te Company win Indemnify itself By charg
Inr st the station where there tR no copeaton rate
.l;ssr eocy fe such cause be necessarily an IN
tust and injurious discrimination to al persons ship
:tioa,: a'as = &'s<1S 'N'~
r.Iexfneton is town where considerable business
ia done Is evident that the discrimination Of rates,
u permanently established viii dnin.ah is business
expected that these corporations should use thetE
poTar 10 benefit. particular individuals or build
etastton in their favor that must cause injury to
9r pssea engaged u N c rsal \ a,1 IN el
eee snah PseG Pasennations .ds Just
sse tb< tue rate Of charges aganst the injured per-
ION Of is 1e hno fae 70 NO
mittea in the 1p1ner suggested md the Lsgsa-
ture has The right to require the corporation to ehow
~. inrT and t. csnuot be permitted to erade the
sai&9g tho r.ss sps'''sys sseed nag agsnss
III reasonable ratce. E,nn reasonable Ehen regard,
ed in reference to the prat upon the capital insesea
of Tie term Il 70 Rctisfactol csn be given tor
charging leas the or for greater
rendered persons doing bnainess with tho company
From what no have said, It viii be ehat the OBJ
ject Of thc law under which these proceedings were
Instituted was, in my opinion, clearly within the
power OF tie Legislature. Tie LEW was attended 10
prescribe the methods by which to enforce common
assume waeneyyr they exercise the functions Of !
carrier, and it ia IN one respect, VS.
Theter there sre defects in tho details Of the law
which need to be amended before it can Ne executed.
Wc Of opinion that there are such defects but they
ere susceptible Of easy amendment.
The discrimination forbidden by tho common Law to
common carriers is :u unjust or unreasooa9le ais-
Is slao against unjust Discrimination It Is IN the fol-
lowing words: "The General Assembly ahall pass
xs to anuses L e and
tariffs different roads in this STATE ana en1oSce
sne axs b. % to ses Of hef
and franchises" Art. H., Sec. Is:
This provision, expressly directing the legislature
10 pass lawE to prevent unjust Discrimination,
Recognition of the palpab1e fact that there may be DIS
ordinations which not unjust and BY i1apncanon
69 a taoss s esien are
II the object Of tho Legislature In passing ne
w Ihs tSay e qopbs eb ia my
whutever, under any circumstances Whatever, and
just or unjust in the a sassgs sagSt feF
equa though moving in opposite dFse tSst
the discrimination u unjust. The mera proof Of
lie discrimination makes out casn 1, aganss & tae aa ~
evidence showing the propr1ety Of the dis,
naon and then upon this s9st o. e1Ra5e 1far e,af a.
the franchise which wou1d often be equivalent to
fine Of millions Of dollars The object Of Tie law u
cornmendable but ouch proceeding, to be followed
b. such penalty for the first offense. can
not be sustained. It could only have been at-
thorzel through the inadverence Of tho Legislature
The law as it now stands makes an oense out Of m
sct which might be etowu not to be an ofense but sn
exercise Of wiso discretion really beneficial to the
people Of The state ;nnd, while debarrng the com
raies from all right Of explanation, conscates their
franchises upon the first conviction. The legislature
cannot raise conclusive presumption Of guilt against
natural from N act that ay 5e innocent IN n
ssas proey Of s .h act sna assss
Ing bis property as penalty tGF 1Re tc forbid he
eprvaon Of Life, liberty, or property except oy dne