, 1873-02-25
ting the companies to show why The different rates

ting the companies to show why The different rates
We may far take judicial notice Of the course OF
public nfatrs in this State. as to say that the real
abuse which the Legislature Wis endesroring by tha
act to prevent, not such proper Determinations
those We have just been supposng. but the practice
which had become general among the rail-
for ca7yng the agricultural products Of he stato to
market, when shipped at station where there no
ahoueh tas distance over ae.e %hea
the freight carried In the latter might greatly
exceed The Distance inthc former. Tho same syatem
points in the Interior although probably felt be
SO great IN evil For discrimination Of this character,
when adopted as system, we certainly perceive
neither justification excuse but 1t is tho
right Of company when prosecuted On the ground Of
unjust to offer what evidence it by
wEy Of explanation It might, for example, ehow in
the present that the lumber shipped Lexington
had caused greater expense 1n loading unloading
prohahe defense hut defenaes nevertheless exist
and II they do the companies should not be deprived
Of tha rIghtsto make thcn.
amended as TO correspond with the requirements ct
tho Constitution. by directing Its prohibition against
unjust determinations. It should mako tie charging
Of greater compensation for legs distance merely
prna facie evidence Of unjust Discrimination instead
Of conclusive eyldence as i n9W u an 4 n should give
only the fact Of Discrimination but tho issue
whether auch discrimination is Just Or not
deem It our duty to advert lts the act now stands,
forfeiture Of ali franchises is The only penalty that
be imposed company IN prosecution l1bututeQ
behalf Of the people, and It is imposed for tho first
would amount to fine OF millions oS dollars Is
not this violation Of the spirit OF that conatltu-
tiopal provision which saya, In terms, that " all
penalties shall be proportional to the nature OF the
o1enHe?" 1e it not also violation of the spirit Of tho
very clauEc Of the Constitution under which this net
YVES fame aud which requires the Legislature to pass
laws TO proye unjust discrimination and e1toron by
railroad corporations and enforce such laws by ale
quate penalties, to the extent II accessory for that
purpost. Of forfeiture Of their property and frnn
chiaes?" Would it not be better to enforce the
2w BY series of ,nasa md snd
penalty Of forfeiturc7 Inv admitting Of but one
will necessarily be subjected by tho Courts to close
criticism and q strict construction.
The English Parliament passed law in 1854 pro-
hibtlng the giving OF undue or unreasonable prefer
enees Or advantages by railway companies Under
this act yarjous cases have arisen In tho Englieh
Courts, which have been cited by counsel. II is
necessary to comment upon them. They hold, as We
d. discrimination is not necessarily m unjust dis
elimination. That is to be determined upon the cv-
dence.
The opinion Of the counsel Is that while the Legisla
ture has unquestiouabe power to prohibit unjust
Discrimination in railway freghts no prosecution can
bo maintained under the existing act until amended,
merely but determinations OF my character and be-
cause 1t does not allow the companies to explain tho
Of the discrimination, but forfeis their fran
chise upon an arbitrary and conclusive presumption
Of guilt, to bo drawn from the proof Of act that
might be shown to be perfectly innocent In these
Constitution The judgment OF the Circuit Court GUST
ing the appellant Of it's franchises must therefore, DO
reversed.
Judgment reversed.