The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1879-09-25
The Cotton Case.

The Cotton Case.
The -NcWS and Courier of the 23,l
Instant says:
While the whole State sy1nbotb.:cs
with the merchants of Winnsbor0 !,
their fight against the impo.iticns Of
the Charlotte, Columbia ard Au..usto
Railroad Company, the public cannot
fail to be struck with the ilnpari;njitv
and wisdom OF Judge WaIlaccs de-
cision, Notwithstanding it is in favor
OF t. he railroad on the particular poipt
nj Issue, 10 wit: Whether eliniu
bales OF cotton were improperly clas-
siticd ns "bulky" goot:s Instead o,
"hcavy" goods, and consequently
wrongfully charg freight by meas
urcmcnt instead ofby weight. The
Statute regulating irciG Ghts limits the
charee to fifteen cents per cubic foot or
fifty cents per hundred pounds. These
charges arc identical when goods
weigh thirty pounds TO the cubic fool.
anu it is all irresistible Inference thrf
the Legislature intended thai uooI,s
weighing less than thirty pounds 10
the cubic foot should be cl.armcl hy
measurement, and those wriplir"
weight. The cotton in question only
weighed about fourteen bounds TO inc
cubic foot and was thcrrloi G li.. ..hi,rllv
charged by measurement. Tie oniu-
Ion Is published i'll full in auot,rr
column, and is clear and conc!usiyo in
establishing that the merchants uutrr
the present Statutes have no redress j.,
the case jD question; Eut that, o;
"a, l,n. q
~ OF lurthcr legislation to prevent
such unjust discrimination on the part
OF the railroad corporations.
We had intended 70 make 10 COM
mems unou thc decision rendered bv
Judge Wallace in This case, but 10
leave the matter in thc la IDS Of coun-
sci before the Supreme Court on the
appeal mace by the merchants. As
the Ne'cs dnd Couric.', however, has
commented upon it. we do no5 cou-
slider it impropcr to say few wo. IS
III reply, especially rs VIC think thc
Ncvs AMI Cor,ior hes 700 has.ily
yielded the point. We would, II IT
have ii imagined for q moment that
we intend any discour.csv to .1uUoc
Wallace, for whom, both priva e. an,;
ofiiclaly, we cn;c;'iain ,nc h;ghcs,
esteem. SILL in all delicate questions
every one is liable 10 crr; and in t;,is
pa:tic]ar case. The merchants, with a
respect, believe that tho Judge has
erred IN reversing the decision 0.
Tie ,oic4 or court. They hpvc no,
begun 10 give up the h3ht in the
courts aod their mdor is no way
dampcncd by this reversal Of their
former victory.
a jay decided for the plaintiffs on
charge by the Trial justice, that if
they found cotton to be heavy article
they SHOULD :cndcr verdict for the
p'al1'lfts. Tho jury, by lis verdict,
decided that thc bales Of co;:on shin
ped by the plaintiffs were heavy ar;i-
cles. An appeal was tal.cn to the
Circuit Court solely Oh the point O;
law that the trial justice re used 10
charge that the dcfcndant had The
legal right under their chartcr 10
classify goods, &C., rs ''hcavv articles:
or "articlcs OF measurement" acco a.
ing as said goods, &C., by their wei, 1T
or bulk first exhaust the carry;no
capacity Of their freight cars. AS wo
read tho opinion of the Circuit Court
1t does not decide tho point on which
the appeal was made, rs to the rioht
OF the Road to classify articles Of
freight, but 1t does decide that cotton
1s an article of measurement, thus re-
Versing the verdict of tho Jury.
The point made by tho defend
ants, that since the cS; cme
charge for wcighty articles is titv
cents hundred, and for articles Of
measurement fifteen cents cubic fool.
the dividing line is q cubic foot oftb:r.
~ ypounds weight, isyery plausible. but
mature reflection shows that if carried
out to its logical conclusions it fails.
!t assumes that specific gravity or
density is the only dividing line bc-
tween heavy articles and articles or
measurement. Extra compensation
ahoWcd by the charter for extra prc-
cautlons' requisite in handling fragile
articles, is entirely ignored in this
tmrty-pounds-to-th o-thc-cubic-foot csti.
mate. Dense substances arc by ma
'ure more or less indestructiblc, arti-
c'es OF measurement more or less
,fagllc. Weight Is the prevailing idea
- inc one; two componcnts cntcrinto
we othcr' Which is tLo more easily
pa'ld'cd--a cotton bale or a plato
siSss show-casc3 Yet by this "stand,