The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1875-04-17

business shall Dc Tor the public, aud that sub
iect to these conditions the profits of the busl-
mess shall belong To himSelt With all these
Inlcdrrs conceded or implied, the contract i
concluded the road constructed, and business
commenced Now what more have the lcD.
e. nIn tn say in this matter? Are they still
nartics TO the contract? Can they insist en-
Ithe faithful observance on the part OF
the railroad company Of its part OF the con
tract?
Ne claim that the people are parties to the
contract, and that they have u right to insist
'upon the contract being carried out which
provides that The company shall act as a com
mon carrier. say serve the public. To act
lin the capacity of a common carrier means a
service for the public.
The public means the whole. To refuse to
carry for \ and then carry for Is, is viola
Ition of the agreement to serve the public. To
charge A 800 per Car load, and then charge
3 $50 for the same service, to the extent OF
the difference is Il refusal te serve the public,
and hence violation of the agreement. Inc
service then becomes individual, 1t becomes
partial, it is tavoritism-it is private and not
public.
Here is discrimination.
! Now, ifthis reasoning is sound, then it iol-
lows that determinations are violation OF the
agreement to serve the pubic.
/ Section of this statutr undertakes TO Pee.
vent these determinations. Is there anything
wrong in the attempt 90 compel the railroad
companies to treat all alike? to make them
observe their contract IN this particularly |
know the statement is often made, IF l choose
TO give IA man a dinner, nights lodging, or
a free ride, whose business is it?' "lf rail
road wishes to haul a car of grain to Chicago
for nothing for ore man, whose business IS II
J a, a.,
more than it is worth tor performing q like
service for another, his neighbor."
On the face of it this proposition looks
quite fair, bat so long as both of these men
are of the public, they are both parties to the
contract, and have equal rights, and the one
who pays only the reasonable price has a
fright to complain at the advantage which his
neighbor has secured from a party that was
lowing him the same treatment. Besides il
will be quite difficult to show that II railroad
company can work for less than cost tor one
party without making up for the deficiency
from some one else.
A company which proposes to serve the
public must treat all as being OF the public.
! We must bear in mind that it takes the whole
to make the public, and the company fails to
work in the capacity of a common carrier
when il fails to keep up this distinction
clusiOn follows that one scale of prices to one
man and a different scale of prices TO his
neghbor for "a like service by railroad com
panies is violation of the charter One
price 10 A and onOther to b for the same ser
vice is a discrimination, and on its face is I'M
lust Section 3 of this act seeks to compel
railroad companies to carry out their agree
lment in this particular, and if they refuse to
do 50, to show good cause, Is this hard
ship? Determinations when INDUCED in
must be explained by those who are respon-
sible for them, anC il no good reason can be
given the railroad companies should be com
PEELED to abandon their. Is there anything
more in this statute?
believe that lfevcry Railroad Company in
the State would see to it that Determinations
were not permitted and treat every man and
every community as they should under their
charter that no legislation in regard to eXtor.
ItiOn would be needed but when dlsCrimna.
ton is INDUCED in il opens the way to eXtOr
ton. More than this, it makes eXtOrtiOn
necessary.
In tact, unjust discrimination is cxtortion,
for the company virtually takes from one un-
Justly and gives it to another by this process.
! 1t Is a violation of this right that the peo-
pie have OF equal and impartial service, that
has brought about this whole railroad ditiCul-
Ity. But we are asked, why not permit one
locality, that has contributed largely to the
construction of railroads, to have the benefit
of these lines in the way Of compensation I?
Towns and cities have paid their thousands
of dollars to build railroads. and now by law
these companies are not permitted TO carry
! for lower price than for some smaller town
near BY, which has contributed nothing what
ever.
The answer TO that proposition is and al.
ways must be- that whenever any portion of
the people change their relation with rail.
road Companies from that part Of the public
to that OF the railroad builders, just so far
that portion becomes the common carrier,
and il too must serve the public as whole,
and hence must look 10 ITS share in the pro-
fits of the carrying business for its only legit.
innate return for the capital invested. The
! people as a whole, have no right TO sell or
surrender TO any portion Of the whole any
privilege
The sovereignty of the people is held and
exercised for the least as well as the greatest,
| for the weak rs well rs the strong. lis cxcr-
else should never be had except in the inter
ests of the whole. To prevent any other
lcourse, would be to give the combined CAPT
tai and power of large cities, power to work
great injury to the weaker towns near by.
The Railroad Company will find that the
true policy is to take good care of the small
towns on ITS line that can boast of no other
7 line Of road. 1t will always find that its pros
perity is closely identified with the prosper
ity of the whole country along its line. BY
keeping freights as low in small towns where
there is only one railroad as they are kept at
the town that has two or three railroads, the
whole of the freight will be kept where it
naturally belongs. The railroad pursuing
. rt' t,N tt.ill AZ pi
freight of that region that Otherwise would be
taken to the competing point, there to be Sc.
) cured by other companies.
five lcgislate at all on this subject, ought
We not make every act tend to secure the right
, the people have in this natter With the
Views above expressed kept before us, and
o. given their due weight, that provision of the
Constitution of the United States which pro
yidcs that no State shall pass a law impairing
The obligation of contracts, will compel Us 10
remain true To that part of the contract which