The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1878-02-20
FREIGHT DISCRIMINATION BILL.
Railroads Dis cussed in the House OF
Representatives.
Tuesday ,sFcb. y, Isl


Tucsdav,s Fcb. II, 1873.
The special ordor-bill to prevent UNI
lust discrimination by comnlo carriers
was called up and elected IN animated
and prolonged discussion.
Mr.. Dar-au moved to strike out the
cracting clause of the bill. and made an
argument in defense Of his motion. The
following are some of the points he made:
|. The effect ofthc bill will he 10 prevent
railroads from charging small frcights to
favored shippers and not to reduce
frrightS for those less favored.
=. 1t will prevent competition bycheck-
ing railroad enterprise, and thcrby finally
produce the exactly opposite effect from
the ont proposed.
raj principles Of trade, and therefore dam
gcr0us. 1t is particularly dangerous IT,
South Carolina, ut the present time, and
the party in power cannot afford TO an
t~ar0niZG the railroad capital Of the State.
At the conclusion of Mr.. bargains
speech. Mr.. Siiand, of Union, rose to OPP
pose the motion to strike out the enactlnG
clause. This waH Mr.. Stands maiden
effort us q Legislator, and he proved him
self to he Il brilliant dclJatcr, 4 cOgcnt rca-
soner and IL sound lawyer. lie m;ldo an
exhaustive argument in favor of the pas
sage OF tho bill, and insisted that the Lc-
giSlaturc is vested with the authority to
pass such Il law, and that it is cSpcdlcnt
now to make such legislation. Here Is Il
synopsis Of what he said:
Where grievances havo been felt in
many States and counties, and legislation
adopted to correct tie evil, and such leg
~lsla;inn has been sustained in the highest
judicial tribunals of the land, We may
rest assured that here in South Carolina
where like evils exist and like complaints
arc heard in similar Legislature, two qucs-
tons are to be determined: is the bill on
s%titutionaI, that is, has the Legislature the
right to pass such Il bill, and secondly, is
it cXpcdicnt.
Upon the first question, to which the
speaker mainly devoted his argument,
he called attention first to the recent de-
cision of the Surrclnc Court of the Unit
| He said that this decision was deliberately
argued by some Of the most prominent
law yerS in the United States, and after
long delibcration, decided by seven
Judges to two Chief Justice delivering
the opinion Of the court. Quotations at
length were then made from thSt dcciS-
ion showing TINT common carriers, as well
us other cmplovnicnts Of apublic charac-
ter, were entirely within the control OF
the Legislature, by whom might be cS-
tabliShcd Il maximum beyond which they
could not go. While common carriers ut
common law were permitted only to
charge reasonable rates, what was reason
attic was Il judicial question, SO long as
the Legislature was silent, but it had
been the immcmOrial practice for LcSis-
laturcs to prescribe what was reasonable
| when it pleased SO to do. "NFhcn there
fore one devotcs his property to II uso in
which tho public has m interest he in Of
feet grants to the public IN interest in
that use, and must submit to be controll-
ed by the public for the common good to
the extent of the interest he has thus Gre
ated."
The next point considered was whether
there was anything in the charters Of the
several railroad companies which would
protect them us contracts from legislative
interference. Attention was called to the
4l2th section of the act of 1911, which re-
served the right to the Legislature OF
amending, modifying or repeating all
charters in which such right was not
specially excepted. That there were only
two or three roads which had been so cN-
ccptcl, and two decisions in the Granger
cases Of the United States Supreme Court
were cited, which clearly sustained the
right by the Legislature under such
reservation to regulate charges. But,
continued Mr.. Slland, independently Of
such reservation, the right exists anyhow
upon the familiar principle that every
law Of the land not inconsistent with the
charter, whether statute or common law,
is us much a part Of the contract as CON
tanned in the charter rs if therein bodily
enacted. At common law, common car
ricrs are held responsible for safe delivery
OF their goods, and are insurers against
all pcrils, the acts of God and the public
enemy excepted; but in no charter Is 1t
prescribed that .:uch liability attaches 10
them. Yet, all courts hold them to tins
strict accountability, because 1t Is Il law OF
common carriers, and rs soon us the rail-
road RESUMES the exercise or the business
of Il common carrier, they become sub
iect to the same control which the Legs
llture has tho right to exercise over indl-
yjIual carriers. So where the law says
that common carriers shall charge only
reasonable rates, and that the Legislature
can fix what is reasonable, railroads en-
crcising the duties Of carriers become
subject, in spite of their charters, to like
control.
AS to the cxpedicncy Of the legislation,
allusion was made to the fact that similar
Legislation had been enacted in England,
Massachusetts, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Kansas, North Carolina, Georgia and
other States; and such legislation had
been sustained in the courts. Evils in
different parts of the State were pointed
ont and commented "pon and in conclu-
sion reference was made to Redticld rs
sustaining the law and the policy.
MI. Werner, IN earnest opponent Of the
measure, next obtained the floor and
made Il strong effort against its passage.
Mr.. Peak was the next speaker. lilo
began by saying that he had listened 10
the able arguments made by those who
had preceded him that they had made
theoretical arguments, while he proposed
to deal with stern facts and infallible
figures. He went OIL to show how solnc
Of the large railroad corporations in this