Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-03-12
THE RAILROAD BILL.
Its Rejection Recommended by
the House judiciary Committee.
Legislative NOn-interference the
Wisest Policy.
Facts Of Great Importance Bear
ing Upon the TranspOr-
tatiOn Problem.

The following report was laid before thi
House yesterday by Judge Gardenhire
chairman Of the Judiciary Committee:
, The judiciary Committee to whom wa
referred House billfNo. 500, have according
to order considered the same, and a MAORI
ty recommend the rejection Of the bill, fo
the following reasons:
The first section, so far as it requires tina
railroads shall receive freight from any ont
who tenders il, and in the order of its ten
der transport the same to its place Of deSti
nation if on its line Of road, is unnecessary
because such is the law now. Our Supreme
Court has held that common carriers are
bound tO. carry for all persons who apply
unless they have a reasonable excuse fol
refusing to do so; Cold, 2S3; East Ten
nessee and Georgia Railroad vs.. Nelson
Red6eld on Carriers s. 132; and it is equal
" well settled that they are bound 70 re.
ceive and carry freight in the order In
which it is offered at the particular station;
lsedfeld on Carriers s. 1877. The latter
part of the section, which requires that
when the place of destination is beyond
the terminal station Of the railroad, it shall
be the duty of the company to promptly
fOr1cGrd the freight to its destination by the
next connecting railroad, if it means that
it shall be the duty of the company to de-
AUer it to the connecting line, is also I'M
necessary because such is now the law.
| Our Supreme Court has held that carriers
are bound 10 deliver goods at their destina-
ton if on their line, or at the end
Of their line, to the next carrier in a
reasonable time, according to the usual
course Of business with all convenient dis
/ PATCH l Cold, 272, East Tennessee and
| Georgia Railroad rs. Nelson: Z Heisk. 259,
/ Louisville and Nashville Railroad vs..
Campbell & Richards; 8 Heiskell POS, W.
and A. r. r. vs.. McEliwee; 9 Heisk. 143,
/ Z. I. Va. r. r. vs.. Rogers; under the law
| as it now stands, when a carrier has limited
his responsibility for damages to such as
| occur on his own line, his liability ends
when he delivers the freight to the connect
| ing line; but the bill under consideration
proposes to require him to fOrlCGrd it by
the connecting line, and thereby make him
| responsible for all damages that may hap
| pen to the freight on the connecting line,
which may be utterly insolvent.
l. would be manifestly unjust to require
| the East tennessee, Virginia and Georgia
/ Railroad TO fOrlCGrd freight by the Alabama
and Chattanooga Railroad, and to incur all
| the responsibilities Of fOTIgdrdeTS over that
road which has for years been in the hands
Of receiver. 1t is enough to require that
/ freight be deliUeTed to the connecting line,
and this the law already does. We have
no constitutional power to make railroads
| that are nothing but common carriers-fOr-
! iCdTderS Of freight against their will. If
:hey contract to carry freight beyond their
/ line, they are liable for the negligence Of
any and every road, over which it passes,
unless they limit their liability by special
! contract; and as they are repOnsible for the
acts Of all the other roads that compose
| the line, they should be left free to say
what road or roads they are willing to en-
gage for.
Section 2 requires every railroad cOmpa-
ny to charge and collect from any person,
| shipping fOrWarder or railroad company,
| for all freight received by it fer tTanspOrta-
| ton at any other station, exactly the same
rate Of freight, per ton per mile, as it shall
| charge and collect from any other person,
| shipper, fOrwarder, or railroad company,
| for the same kind Of freight from the same
| station, no more, no less. In other words,
| the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia
| Railroad Company is compelled to charge
| the same rate per ton, per mile, on a car
load Of cotton en- route from New Orleans
| to Boston, which it transports over its
| road from Chattanooga 10 Bristol, that
| it Efwould charge upon car load
of cotton started at Chattanooga in the
| first instance, and consigned to Bristol as
| its final destination. When it receives a
car load Of cotton from private shipper at
| Chattanooga for Bristol, it must charge
| him no more than il charges the Alabama
and Chattanooga Railroad OF the Memphis
| and Charleston Railroad, for a through car
on its way from New Orleans to Boston.
/ It must either give local freights through
rates, or it must impose local rates on
| through freights; for all freights, whether
| through or local, that are received at the
same station and carried the same distance
| over its road, must be charged the same
rate per ton per mile. This is a most i'm
pOrtant feature in the bill, and it will pro-
| duce a lasting effect upon the commerce Of
| the State. 1t is not believed that any con-
siderable portion of our people desire the
absolute ruin Of the great interests repre-
| scented by our railroad system, which it has
required so much time and money to in
| augurate; nor is it believed to be the policy
| of the State to diminish their taxable rdlue.
| Now, it is a well known fact, that in our
sparsely settled and impoverished State, no
| railroad can live upon its local freights,
even if it were to charge up to the full
maximum allowed by its charter; and it is
also well known that the more a railroad
| can realize from through freights, the more
it can reduce on its local freights. So, on
| the other hand, whenever il is deprived Of
| the right to carry through freights, its loss
| from that source must be made up by a
| corresponding increase in local rates, to the
/ obvious injury Of our own people. No
railroad in this State can afford to give
through rates to its local freight, and as
| the bill under consideration requires
| that the same rate per ton
per mile shall be charged, the
companies will be forced to put local rates
| on through freights, and that will drive all
| through freights from our roads. Cotton
can be shipped from New Orleans to ROs-
| ton via Chattanooga, or by sea, or By rail to
| Savannah or Charleston and thence by sea,
or by the Mississippi river to Cairo, Louis
Vile or Cincinnati, and thence by rail. In
other words there are at least three COM
peting lines from New Orleans to Boston,
which lie completely outside of our State,
and beyond our control, that are anxious
to get this freight. Now, though we have
/ the shortest and best line passing through
/ our own State, it IS proposed 10 force our
| railroads 10 put local rates on this through
| freight, drive it out Of our State, deprive
/ our roads of what they are making by it,
and force them to make good their loss, by
increasing their local rates upon our own
citizens. Some people seem to blame our
roads because through rates are less than
| local rates; but this is unjust; our roads
cannot control through rates. Through
rates are fixed by competition Of other lines
beyond our State, and our roads must carry
as low as other lines, or get no freight. In
reality il makes no difference to our peO-
pie, whether though rates are high or lOw;
they concern only those t0hO ship through
freiybt2.
II we drive them from our State, other
States will be glad to get them, and we viii
be just so much the poorer. The through
freights carried by our roads last year were
not less than s.
The bill will drive this wealth from our
State to others, and so far from its benefit
ing US, we will not only lose the
money derived from through freights,
but we will have our local freights
increased to the full limits OF the railroad
charters. The last clause of this vcry sec
| tiOn recognizes tina tusFica of allowing a