New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-08-19

sdered in the opinion Of Judge Upton, before whom
the Alton Railroad case first came, IN the Mclean
County Circuit Court and thoso~treated In that OF
Judge Lawrence in the Supreme Court. Judge
Upton in his opinion does take up this very ques-
ton of the power of the Legislature to control rail-
roads, and after able discussion Of it, decides it
in favor of the people the ground that the law of
1871 did not conflict with the Constitution of the
UnitedStates The farmers quote this opinion one
of the ablest documents vet issued on their side OF
the controversy Because the Supreme Court reversed
Judge TiptOns judgment, a general impression has
got abroad that 1t controveted the position be took
on this fundamental question, when the truth is
that it did not touch 1t at ALL Judge Lawrence tried
the law. not by the Constitution OF the United
States but by that of the State he decided tnat IL
violated the spirit of the very section OF the state
Constitution which the railroads hold, violates the
Constitution of the United States. Let mo quote
his words
The opinion OF the Cour: Is that while the Legislature
nafian m raway freghts no prosecution can be main
tanned under the existing act until amended because a.,
rm,naton Of any character, and because II does not
allow The 70 explain e fa .n upon an aTb
rarV and conclusive presumption or quit 10 DC arawh
ffIv Innocent In these particulars the existing act
violates the spirit Of the lstate1 Constitution.
THE DECISION REALLY TRIUMPH FOR THE
FARMERS.
II seems TO me. then. that the decision OF the
Supreme Court of the State as delivered by Judge
Lawrence ought TO have been considered triumph
for the farmers 10 be sure they lost that particular
,ase hut single case is of no comparative conse-
nuence when the principle for which they contended
was established "The only issue to be made" says
Judge Lawrence in another part of his opinion,
under a law properly framed, would be whether
there was an unjust discrimination or not. If
On the trial of such an issue the prosecutor
proves permanently established dlScrrn1na-
ton like that disclosed by the present
record and the company can show no
pther reason for it than tho existence of competing
line at the favored point the defense must be held
unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding witnesses may
testify that they believe q matter OF theoretical
opinion that the rates to Lexington are reasonable.
they cannot be reasonable, and the discrimination
must be Unjust if the lesser rates for tho greater
distance have been established, merely because the
company has ceased to exercise at that
point a practical monopoly. 1t cannot DO
supposed that either of the competing
lines would establish a permanent rate OF charges
upon scale that would not furnish remunerative
profit The rates to Bloomington would be estab-
Gshed under the influence of fair competition
which, by the ordinary laws that govern commerce,
might be relied upon as establishing rate not un-
reasonably low. AtLexingtOn, the rates would be
established by the uncontrolled discretion of the
company, and it should not cause surprise II
they were fixed unreasonably high. Ii the
rates are not unreasonably low at Bloomington,
Lhsy arc unTeasODably high at Lexington. If they
are unreasonably low at Bloomington and at all
other points touched by competing lines, is it not
certain that the company will indemnify itself by
charging at the stations where there is no competi-
ton a rate unreasonably hight And will not dis
elimination arising solely from such a cause be
necessarily an unjust and injurious discrimination
20 all persons Shipping OF receiving relghts al the
contemplating statlonST
ERRONEOUS NOTIONS PREVAILING AMONG THE
FARMERS.
What more do the farmers want than thisi They
certainly do not desire to forbid dscrimin atoms
that are Just and if they hold the railroads firmly to
the principles laid down by Judge Lawrence in this
opinion they have the matter entirely within their
control.
have dwelt at considerable length upon this par
ticuar phase Of the controversy between the farmers
% this State and the railroads. because the question
of the right of the Legislature, under the COnsttu-
ton of the United States to control the railroads at
all lies at the foundation of all legislation on this
subject and because beheye that an erroneous Idea
prevails among some of the farmers of this
State as we'll in tho East where
the opinion Of the court has not been extensively
read that somehow or another the doctrine OF nom
interference held by the railroad companies was
sustained by Judge Lawrence. 1t will be time
enough il seems to me, for the farmers TO talk OF
putting upon the Supreme Bench OF the State and OF
the United States Judges who VIII cease quoting the
Dartmouth College case and eXpOund the law for
themselves in the light Of the present relations of
corporations the people, when that ease is quoted
against them by any court of this State or OF the
United Stares.