Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1881-12-17
THE GEORGIA RAM.Ro.n
COMMISSION.

'he PaS' oecaue ior the right OF the
State 10 legislate and enact such l,v.
as would secure justice and protection
to the local traffic along the line Of n.
Railroads which pass through our Sat-
and which are exsortiouate in ,bei,
charges upon local freight and p.,sen.
gers We copy below very clear and
able article upon thS, subject from ,b,,
astute and conservative paper, the Bal.
timore Sun of the 9th instant:-
THE GEORGIA RAILROAD COMMISSION
The principle that the States have -.
right 10 fix rates for the railroads viii. e
their limits has been decided again sn.i
again by the courts in the West, in NJ
chusetts and in Georgia, and the practioa
bility OF enforcing the rights Of indie
uals against powerful corporations hy ~.
intervention of a State commission rlo,b"S
with authority TO deter mine what rats
should be charged certainly appears 70
have good basis 10 rest upon. Persons
living along the line of railroad or
nav twice rs much as they would have -
DO if freight rates were proportions, -
distance rather than 10 the losses sns.,ay
by the railroad at competing point"
The local business Is too often sacri6ca-I
TO through business So that the n.o,J'
who helped 10 build road, have tbsir
money sunk i'm il, and are It's ASSURED ems.
toners, fare worse than persons liyin,
hundreds of miles away who are no, ,nrs
customers, who have no money inyrSte1
i'm the road, and who are served ALREADY
by some other road. The wrong is raj
one. Happily wise policy has prevented
its existence in some roads and limiteli,s
extension In others. so that tho sam,
need for State interference is not every.
where felt.
When in 1879 a commission for the req.
ulation of rates WAS proposed in IN.
Georgia Legislature Ii met with great ON.
position from interested parties. whenit
seemed 10 be- inevitable, they sought to
make the State control imperative hy
cunningly devised amendments. Failm,
In this, they Charged that the delegation
bv the Legislature 10 the commission of
the power 10 fix rates was unconsiitution-
al; but the legality of this action OF the
Legislature has been fully sustained by
the courts. The influence of shippers Who
desired rates more favorable than their
neighbors was also invoke, To defeat this
legislation, but IL was not successful and
the people of Georgia have today means
of securing fair treatment from their rail.
roads" The results have been, accord
ing 10 the summary made in the report of
Al nf ha ~.
Chamber of Commerce, "that IN two
wears the commission has done away with
unjust discrimination rs regards both 10.
calities and individuals. Rates are now
publicly posted At every station, aud every
shipper can see what he will he charged
for n given service. Freight and pIs.rn-
yer rates have been both equalilrd aud
reduced, the saving therefrom being csti-
mated at more than 81 ,NO, OOO--cquiva-
lent TO their entire State tlx--and yet the
increase of traffic resulting thercfroIn has
Welded larger net returns 10 the railroads
than before" The Georgia commission
has greater powers than that OF Ma,sa-
chuSetts, "inasmuch as IL IL made the duty
of the Georgia commissioners Ia TX rates
for carrying freight and passengers on The
railroads within that State, hut with less
power than the English railway commits
siOnrrs, the decisions of the Georgia COM
missioncrs being subject TO review by the
courts, while those of the English com
missioncrs are not" The last report of
this commission, I'm illustration OF the
maxim that "rights without remedies are
worthless" gives several examples OF the
wrongs which IL was their function TO
correct. The commissioners say:
"SuppOse I citizen To received package
on which the actual freight charge Wa,
81 30, while n just aud reasonable rate
would be but 81. What could he dor l.
sually he could not wait but must pas De
81 10 under protest, AMI bring suit after
ward, IL he thought ii worth his while,
for the half dollar Oycrchargc. But could
he afford to GO this? His interest IN the
matter would not warrant the rN-
pensc-thr costs, fees, witnesses. the die
cusSion of the principles aud facts IN
yolyed, ~ to what rate would be reason
able and Just In the particular ease. And
only the one case would bc settled after
all. The next day n parcel would be
charged seventy-iiye cents, worth but IT.
tv, and the twenty-five cents would IN
yolvc new suit. Practically he was
Obliged to submit. Were IL n merchant
who overchargcd him he would transfer
his trade Ia another house. But In deal
inc with the railroad he II dealing usual
" with monopoly, unless ut u competing
pOint-and now even at such pOntby
reason Of pooling-and so he was rene
dilcss. A litigation wonld usually settle
hut single cilsc--onc class--one distance,
scarcely any principle ri all. Such wn
the attitude of the citizen. Consider next
the attitude Of the railroad prioT tsthe
act of 1879. Ithad a lary' Interest is T,-
suits. Instead o! 20 cents mplluplial b.
I, thc citizens INTEREST," The railroad
had 80 cents multiplied by 1000 or 500
600 as It's interest. i. would have. also.
ample experience, aud the best legal TAI
ent already engaged and trained and
waiting, and all the experts fayorably IN
clined. So uneqrally were the partles
matched that In the whole history OF The
State there has been not one single case Of
a suit by n citizen 10 enforce tlis cOiDndu-
law right and but one IN enforce even
statutory right for an OyerclIarge. In
that case the charter Of the railroad In Ell
pres terms limited the rates, yet the rail-
road fixed its rates beyond tire chartered
limit, printed them and collected them,
and was checked by this suit"
The common-lnw right Of the citizen 70
De protected from extorfiOn nrd npj,E
discrimination existed Ia full force prior
10 the act OF 1879, butth remedy for L,
violation WAS inadequate. Practically
the citizen had no rights though his the.
oretical right was ample and complete"
On the other hand the rights VI the nail
road companies were well deiDed, asd
they had the means Of self-protccti0n M
their own hands. IL was not the use o.
their legal rights wbich needed chect,
but the abuse VI them, and such CHECK
was elrectually provided Ia the creation
of a railroad commission. The estabslae
ment OF national railroad commission
il very different matter, and may ls pro,
no,inced impTacticable on constitutions
a. well as other grounds.