Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-05-12

u HttS CtUtC Us ougtCtcftt cCSttCNCC Httet Htc
rates therein fired are Just and reasona-
be" We contend that this confers on
the Commission absolute control of the
railway rates of the State, and that the
courts are powerless to afford protection,
and that, therefore, the law is despotic
and the roads have no redress. Our
contemporary, however, claims other
wise, and gives us the valuable informa-
ton that amy lawyer" will tell US that,
in case before the courts,
the Commissions schedules of rates
are simply priHaG .tacie evidence; that the
roads have the right to 60 behind the
law and introduce evidence before
jury to prove that the said rates are not
just and reasonable, and that the jury
will have the power so to decide if this
outside evidence is to that effect We have
not space to reproduce in full the article
of the Constitution on this point, but we
think we have stated both its and our
own positions fairly. Lest our contem-
porary, however, should accuse US of
unfairness, we will reproduce the follow
ing short extract. which contains the gist
of its entire article:
''The law makes the schedule of the
Commissioners the basis (of evidence),
and instead of kicking the railroads out
of court, as the News absurdly declares,
takes the case before a jury to which be-
longs the right of deciding whether the
evidence is sufficient or satisfactory"
With all due respect to the legal fra
ternity, we desire to say-what each
member of that fraternity will, no doubt,
agree to-that referring US by our
contemporary to "any lawyer" to estab-
lish its position amounts to nothing.
Lawyers always argue and make up their
opinions on their side of any case, and
always resort to technicalities and prece-
dents-of which there are legions on all
possible questions-tO carry their point
If, therefore, we consent to take the ad.
vice of the Constitution and finally refer
the matter to "aDy lawyer" we would
be in as much uncertainty about it as is
our Atlanta contemporary, for the decis-
ion would be just such a decision as that
particular lawyer, whom we happened to
consult. would be inclined to give In other
words, if said lawyer were a friend of
the Commission law as it now stands, he
would tell US that the schedules were
priHG facje evidence only, and that the
jury could decide on the reasonableness
Of the rates upon other evidence. While
if he happened to be opposed to the law,
he would say that neither courts nor
jury could 60 behind that law, but must
abide by its plain utterances, and all
evidence to prove the schedules them
selves unreasonable and unjust would be
aliuad6. So reference Of the subject to
ANY lawyer" would prove wholly IN.
satisfactory.
Now, let us see what is the exact
wording of the law. In its sixth section
page 127, Georgia Laws, 1S78-70it will
be found to read as follows:
THAT the said Railroad Commission
ers are hereby authorized and required to
make for each of the railroad corpora
tiOns doing business IN this State, as
soon as practicable, a schedule of Just
and reasonable rates of charges for the
transportation of passengers and freights
and cars on each of said railroads, and
said schedule shall, in suits brought
against any such railroad corporation,
wherein is involved the charges of any
such railroad corporation for the trans
pOrtation of any passenger or freight or
cars, or unjust discrimination in rela-
ton thereto, be deemed and taken in all
courts of this State as sufficient evidence
that the rates therein fixed are just and
reasonable rates of charges for the trans
portation of passengers and freights and
cars upon the railroads, etc.
That is the exact language of the law,
with our italics. We submit it to any
candid and impartial man, be he lawyer,
or be he simply man of good common
sense, if that language is not clear, terse
and explicit. The law says, most en-
phatically, the evidence shall be "suffi
Gent" According to Webster, the word
sufficient" is defined adequate to suf-
fee, " equal to the end proposed, " "ade-
quate to wants, competent. Now if the
Legislature, in enacting the law. meant
that the Commissioners schedules should
be p1inta facte evidence only, and not evi-
dence adequate" equal to the end
proposed" and competent" why did
it so expressly say to the contrary? We
hold, therefore, that in any case before
the courts between the Commission and
the roads for violation of the Commits
sion schedule, the court would be obliged
to charge the jury that, in accordance with
the law, the only questions for them to
decide would be, first, "Are the SEIZED
ues offered in evidence the official sched-
ules decided upon by the Commission
and, second, ''Have the railroads refused
to abide by these schedules?" If the jury
are forced to answer these questions in
the affirmative, then they must find for
the Commission, and the courts must in
fiict the penalties. Again, we ask If
that is not the very essence of despotism,
what is it?
That it is, is the decision at which any
impartial mind must unhesitatingly
arrive, and, what is of more consequence
to Georgia, it is undoubtedly the decision
at which the capitalist desiring to invest
his money in railway enterprises in this
State would arrive. Such men are not
generally willing to invest millions in
works of internal improvement for the
development of any State, and then
trust, as our Atlanta contemporary evil
IDENTIFY would do, to the quirks and
bubbles of the law for protection. They
would desire to have something posi-
tive to say about the management
of their funds after they had been
invested, and would hardly rely on the
remote possibilities of being saved harm
less from the arbitrary rulings of the
Commission by means of legal techni-