The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1880-01-17

COiilIittCtt Ill "ciSltO uilt uttth WIZ
other articles, first exhaust the carry
ing capacity of the freight cars used fo
the transportation Of the same.
shaH not commit the grave inpro
pricty ofrcvicwing this decision, bu
l am necessarily constrained to notic'
the grounds upon which it rests, us i
has been filed as part ofthc Respond
cnt's return in this case. 1t is wei
settled law that the Judgment in ;
cause binds only the parties to th'
cause Certainly the right of action q
any person is not to be concluded, sl
even suspended, by Judgment ru,-
dcrcd in 81 cause in which he could lot
be heard, and the appeal from wllcll
he can in nowisc control. Espccillly
is this true Of a public officer cliagcd
with the duty, on behalf OF the prDlit>
Of invoking 4 judiciaA determination
as to the powers Ola corporation that
in his Judgment is engaged in a. open
and coptiRtimg violation Of faY and
the terms Of its charter, by clacting
excessive rates Of toll from thcpublic.
Section s of tho Act crcaing the
Office of Railroad Commissioner for
the State of South Contemporaries
that, "whcncvcr ia the judgment of
the Railroad COMMISSIONS, 1t shall
appear that any such corpCntion has
violated any laws, or neglected in any
respect or particular to omply with
the terms Of its charter )r with the
provisions of any Of the laws Of the
State, especially in rcgsal to the con-
Incctions with other RAILROADS, the rates
of toll and the time scbdulc, he shall
give notice thereof in Yriting to such
corporation, and if.hc violation or
neglect is continued ftcr such notice,
the Commissioner SILL make applica-
ton to Circuit yourt or II Judge
thereof, in vacaticltor an injunction,
to restrain the company complained Of
from further contnuing to violate the
law or the tens of its charter"
(Statucs at Lar.e, Vol. 16, p. 1882
Lam unable, therefore, to perceive
either the lcgaRorce or the relevancy Of
the argument ~ which It is iscontendcd,
that although it is made the duty Of
the Commissioner by solemn Statute
Of the Statcto make application for ,n
injunctionto restrain a railroad cor
poration which in his Judgment is
violating its charter, yet it is tho
duty ofshis Court to refuse such ap-
plicatitn, however mciitorious il May
appca,, because in a suit blought bv q
privatc individual, involving the same
issue, the presiding Judge OF another
Circuit has decided in tivor OF this
Respondent, aud an appeal from that
decision is now pending. Nor is this
extraordinary view at al reinforced
by tho consideration which has been
urged in its support, th,t if that de-
cision is reversed shippers who have
paid charges that arc atuged cXccs-
sive may recover the ,Xccss by un
action against tho Company. If I am
to contemplate the magnitude of the
Interests involved in tho decision of a
purely legal question, should hold
the interests of "ship3ers" to be the
lowest in tho scale of value. Says all
eminent writer, on dlc law of evi-
dcnce, treating of 'hings judicially
taken notice Of: "Thcgcncral customs
and usagcs Of merchants, as we'll as
the public Statutes md general laws
and customs Of thicrOwn country are
recognized without proof Of the Courts
of all civilized natiois.' 'U. Grccnlcaf
OH Evidence, ,5.) !. may, therefore,
properly take judicial notice Of tho
fact that according to the custom Of
trade, as it relates 70 tho article OF cot
ton in bales, the producers arc not
generally the shippers Of the staple,
but, on the contrary. in the vast ma
jority of cases, do lot ship directly,
but sell this produd at the various
market towns Of thcil respective coun-
ties to merchants who purchase Oh
speculation to ship aboad for resale,
The cost Of transportation is q tax
upon the producer, who sells for ship
mcnt, for the shipper dcducts from
the purchase price paddy him for the
product in the locnl market, the cost
of transportation to the foreign mar
ket III which he is to rmliZc upon his
venture. Hence if the charges for
transportation are excessive the pro-
duccr who sells, and not the shipper
who buys, is nulctcd in the reduced
value of his product caused by the
illegal charge. For tho producer in
such case, there is no remedy at law,
and he must DO subjected to irrcpara-
bic injury unless the Courts, upon Il
proper case made, intcrpose by inillnc-
ton to restr3in the Company from
demanding excessive rates of toll.
'Ao IsitoCNA ~ AoStS uOWcfCE DC
decided as question Of law, depend
ent upon tho true construction OF
Respondents charter, tho meaning and
effect of whifh arc to be determined
by those established rules for the ill-
depreciation of Statutes, which are
alike commended by reason, and sane
toned by tile highest judicial authori.
ty. II that construction should operate
to affect injhriously either the interests
of the corporation or of the public
the remedy is to be sought in the
Legislative acparGmcnt. Courts arc to
cxponnd Smtutcs with reference to
the legal rights vested under them
and not to frame systems Of oxpc.
dicncy to fit the varying interests OF
corporations orof individuals.
The question to be decided in this
case arises upon the construction oi
Section x. of tho Act, entitled "Ar
Act to produce conformity in tho
charter granted the Charlotte, Column
bia u Augusta Railroad Company, b,
tho States Of North CaroIina anc
South Carolina" passed. December 10
l848. (Statutcs at Large, XII, G26.I
Tho Section is as follows:
"SEcTIoN x. That the said Compan,
shall have exclusive right of convey
ance or TRANSPORTATION of persons