Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-08-15

Bafnett--COId Facts from Manager
HatRes--Judge ChtshOlmss Argu-
ment.-'' The Old Law. the Mis-
chief. and the RemedY.o
ATLANTA, GA August 12-Editor Morning
NeScs ITO perpetuate the principles of free
government, insure justice to all, preserve
peace, promote the interests and happiness of
the citizen and transmit to posterity the en-
joyment of liberty" is the grand key to the
bill of rights of our present constitution and
as the highly tempered steel secures the unison
of sound in the cultivated choir, so should this
declaratory sentiment secure accord Of action
and operation in all the departments of our
State government
To the locker on here this does not seem to
be the case The four departments of govern
ment, the legislative, judicial, executive and
despOtic, are not all in harmony. The three
first, fabricated with constitutional OIL glide
along their wonted channels without fric
ton. The last shrieks and groans for
the want of proper construction, and
although filed in with citizens eminent in
their qualifcations-one Of experience IN the
ldtU and one of experience in rdtlscaU business
AMI the other, without description in the stat
the general public interest''-it is destitute of
all constitutional symmetry. This department
of government a curiosity of unconstitutional
mechanism, was created by the act of October
14th, 1879, and was intended by its trainers as
an instrument of good to the whole people, and
as subject to the fundamental law In this the
creature has fallen far short of the design, and
instead, is political monstrosity, burdensome
to the people and offensive to all lovers of lib
erty.
This department published its orders on pages
IA and 131 of the blue book. This fourth de-
partment' recommends in language not to be
misunderstood, the providing an appeal to the
judicial department.
These suggestions appeared so fair, and as
a step towards a return to constitutional gov
ernment, that q Joint session of the railroad
committees of both houses of the General
Assembly was arranged to hear the suggeS-
tions of the railroad men, and the trio of this
fourth department. as to the defects exist
ing in the law, and the proposed changes.
These committees met in joint session in the
Senate chamber on the 5th inst, in the after
noon. The Hon. Joseph z. Brown outlined the
unconstitutional features Of the act of October
14th, 1879, and suggested that the powers now
exercised by the new department. be with
drawn, and that it be clothed with judicial
power only, all the while dsclaiming any at
tack upon the members of the department -
All he urged was that the law was unconstitu-
tional. and that the owners of railroad proper
ty in Georgia might be remanded to the rights
of the humblest freeman, that of trial by the
same laws as other freemen, and not be tried
by three worthy gentlemen, who were clothed
under this act with powers of all three Of the
departments of government-the legislative,
the judicial and executive.
Senator Brown was followed by Mr.. Samuel
Barnett, representing the general public
against railroads, as an attorney representing
his client in a case.
We regret exceedingly that we cannot truth
fully dignity Mr.. Barnett's remarks as an argu-
ment upon the matter under consideration
nor as reply to Senator Browns suggestions.
A bill had been introduced In the lower
house by Mr.. Crawford, of Muscogee, the pur-
pose of which was to modify the Railroad
Commission law. That bill had, by the body
before which it had been introduced, been re-
ferred to its Committee on Railroads, whose
Chairman had invited the joint session to hear
the defects of the present law and the suggest
ed remedies discussed. The whole matter was
before the House Committee to report favora-
bly, upon, report against any change of the
present law, or report substitute for Mr..
Crawford's bill. The railroad men were
there to demonstrate against what they
believed an unconstitutional law, and one
which worked hardship and great wrong upon
at least one of the roads then represented.
The first point made by the counsel for the
general public" was an attack upon the mo.
tiveS OF the railroad men In appearing before
the Committee on Railroads and arguing legal
questions. He said they should go before the
Judiciary Committee and argue them. Why
are they here arguing these points of law -
when he must have known that bill affecting
the interests Of those present had been sent
there by the House of Representatives, over
whom no personal influence could be exercised
to divert a bill from its appropriate committee.
1t was no argument upon the matter under
consideration, but was direct reflection upon
the intelligence of the members Of the COM
mittee, number OF whom are lawyers,
and an imputation upon the
good faith Of those there representing
railroad interests. Decidedly cheap strategy,
and we noted that circumstance as a confes
sion by Mr.. Barnett of either the weakness or
m n RiOht nf re
power, adopts no Subterfuge, seeks no advant-
age through iufiamed prejudice or passion.
Mr.. Barnett urged, as another point, that
Judge Woods had decided upon the constitu-
tionality of the statute creating the Commits
sion, as well as upon the grant of powers
with which they were invested, and while
claiming this in his favor, counsel for the
general public" also urged, as a reason why
the views advanced in behalf of railroad inter
ests should not prevail, that the case upon
which JudgeWoods had passed was not brought
in the State courts, and therefore the
action of Mr.. TilIey should be visit
ed upon all the railroads in the
State. The ruling of Judge Woods as is well
known, could only be binding upon the parties
to the bill, and if Mr.. Barnett's argument is
worth any thing on this line it is clear that it
ought not to be binding on anybody else than
the parties to the bill; We notice that Mr..
Barnett insisted in that Tilley case, through his
counsel, that the case could not have been
brought in the Georgia State COURTS and we
ask, II Mr.. Barnett's counsel were right in their
argument in the Tilley case, upon this point,
upon what principle consistent with common
fairness or common justice, or upon what de-
mand of public interest he can justify such an
argument? If the argument In the Tilley case
was not correct law, then the case was ad-
judged upon false principles, and ought not to
be followed as precedent. If it was correct
law, then Mr.. Barnett is wrong,
and there is no escape from this con-
clusion, for he seems to be thoroughly conver-
SAINT with all the arguments urged in the case
We have failed to find any excuse for the@us
OF such an argument by an official-a high Of
fetal, whose action cannot be reviewed In be-
half OF the continuation to himself of such
most unusual powers.
AS an argument in favor of the continuation
to the fourth department of government of
its present pretended powers Mr. Barnett in
sisted that the Commissioners had saved to
the citizens of the State, in charges of freight
and passage, more than the total State tax
collected from all sources, or above $1,000
QUO w. But he did not tell the joint session
hot0 it had been saved, at whose expense it had
been saved to the citizens. That was kept
back.
Those who will examine the first and second
semi annual reports of the Commission will
find that the famous standard tariff" went in
to effect about May 4th, 1880. In the second re-
port will be found circulars 8. 9 and 10. They
bear date June 10, July and August 13, $780,
Under the law these circularsJ must be pub
lished thirty days before the roads affected can
apply the rates. Therefore, from these circu-
lars, the roads affected operated under the
August 9Th and September 18th, two and one
half months for the shortest time, and about
four and one-third months for the longest
time, when, by these circulars, the rates on
these roads were advanced from 10 to 100 per
cent. If the last rates were Just and reasona-
bic, then the first must have been
grossly unjust, and unreasonably low. The
roads affected were the Columbus and Rome,
Atlanta and West Point, the Central, the Macon
and brunswick and the Atlanta and Charlotte
Air Line.
savor too strongly of injustice and unreason.
ablenessl Did the public interest require that
the "onus of complaint" of their first semi
annual report should be continued for so long
a timer
We acknowledge that we envy not disposi-
tion that can boast of results so stained with
injustice.
We might follow Mr.. Barnett further. But
from the samples we have given the public can
Judge of the remainder of the speech. Even
II the remainder were unexceptionable. these
reports show how he attempted to sustain All
the acts OF the Commission and the law.
Since the argument the third fragment of the
Commission g third semi-annual port has been
published On pages and OF that issue we
find the following:
I'VE are constantly told: We do not COM
plain or fair rateS-even Of full rates We
wish the railroads to have all they are entitled
SG. 9gG I'VE are not Wiling to suffer by unjust I
and we are satisfied, is the general voice."
Here is the record made by the Commits
sioners-t the voice Of the general public say
ingi "Rectify unjust Determinations and we
are satisfied, let the roads have fair, even fun
rates" In the face of this testimony we would
listen most patiently, if Counsel for the Gem
eral Public will rise and explain whv
the Savannah, Florida and Wesf-
ern Railway Company, which has made
full reports, as requested OF it. shouId he Lant
waiting the motion Of other roads before rates
at which the company can live win be allowed
Ihe general voice" should be obeyed. il this