The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1880-04-20

! Vic same amount per pound tor trans
poration would be Practically un alb
surditv. The articles subject to rail
road tran soortation arc of SD varied a
character as to value, liability to pro-
duce and receive injury, aud conven-
lencc OF handling aud transportation,
that tie absurdity illustrated by the
case or coal aud diamonds reappears
with more or less distinc:ness through.
out the whole series.
1t may be said that classification of
frclghts into several grades or classes.
each paying q rate differing from the
others, aud passing by regular steps Of
gradati0n from the minimum charge
to the maximum, might obviatc tie
irrcgularity that would result from the
differences Of value in the articles SO
graded in the application of the rule of
computation already stuffed. Ifit were
possibl le that practical classification
should be based on differences of value
alone, this might be the case. But
there are other considerations than
that of value that must enter into
practical classification, such as liability
to produce or sustain damage, aud the
convenience Of handling and transDor-
tation. It's apparent that the moment
1t is admittcdilhat the amount charged
for any two commodities respectively,
may be regulated independently OF
fhcir relative weight and volume, the
rule OF equality propOuntlcd in the
mathematical formula is violated, as
would be the case, in many instances,
where differences relative to liability
to produce or receive injury and the
convenience of handling and trans
portatlng were allowed to affect the
amount Of the sums charged for freight.
1t is clear that the tendency Of such a
construction as that contcndcd for
would be to compel railroad companies
to ADJUST their business to theoretical
standards instead Of leaving them
free, within certain limits, to arrange
their modes OF transacting their busi-
ness according to the cXigcncics of the
business. 1t is equally clear that the
Whole purpose ofthc statute was TO fix
an upward limit. to railroad charges
ana not 10 fix scale by which they
might DC computed with refer
chcr 10 unit common to all classes Of
goods. This would leave the compu-
H.? Tree to pursue that course that
would be dictated by business ncccssi-
~ or prudence within the limits fixed
Dy law. Such being the case, we must
conclude that the Act does not afford
any means oftc crmimg the force Of
the expressions hc0VJ and articles of
measurement. and that these terms
must be defined by proof Of the Gus
tom IN practice prevailing al the time
OF the passage Of the Act.
There is no evidence in this case in
which Il construction of these terms
can be made in their application to
cotton packed in bales, and the iudg-
mcnt appealed from must he set aside
and the cause rcnandcd to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings.
The following is the opinion, also
delivered by the Chief Justice, in the
Elder case:
This was al action in tie Trial JUS
ticc's Court, in which the plaintiff
obtained verdict and Judgment,
which was set aside by tile Circuit
Court.
The case Of Bonham vs.. the same
defendants, just decided, disposcs of
the questions Of law raised in this case.
The charge of the Trial Justice was
conformuble to the conclusions at
which we have arrived as stated i'll
that case.
The judgment OF the Circuit Court
must be set aside and that Of the Trial
Justice affirmed.