The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-08-29

Regulating Charges for Traaspcrta-
tlon Beyond State Limits.
4 stumbling block in the way Of the
advocates Of supervising and fixing
freights and other Railroad charges. is
that, though the pover unquesti0nably
exists In State 70 prescribe charges for
transportation, 1T can be exercised only /
on that part Of shipments from this State
which may be transported within her
own limits. e on shipment Of bale
of cotton to New Orleans she may say
what shall be charged to the State line,
leaving the Railroad company or the
authorities in Louisiana TO fix the rate
for the remainder of the trip" This is
the language Of Senator George in his
letter on the subject Of Railroad super
vision In that particular case certainly
no obstacle could exist for the reason
that the line of the company which
would engage to carry freight from Jack
son, say to New Orleans, terminate at
that city, and a contract between the
company and the shipper to carry freight
st 3 stipulated price would be equally
as binding whether carried 10 a point
within or beyond, the State This propo-
sition is so clear aud % manifestly proper
that no argument nor citation of author
ity is needed to sustain it. II there was
Law in force in Mississippi fixing the
rate of charges TO New Orleans, the
Law itself would constitute the contract
regulating and prescribing the charges,
The principles seems to have been clear
| ly laid down in the case of the Michigan
Central r. R. Co, y. Myrick, decided
by the [. S. Supreme Court, in 1882, for
though the action was instituted to hold
a particular company liable for damages
incurred in shipment of a lot of cattle
over separate lines between Chicago and
Philadelphia, the general doctrine is that
the company receiving the goods for ship
ment is bound by the contract it made
to cover the whole route. We quote
from the decision as follows:
Field, j. After stating the facts. J
The principal question presented by the
defendant has been deliberately considered
and adiudged by this court. 1t is only
necessary, therefore, to state the cenclu.
sion reached: A railroad company is a
carrier of goods for the public, and, as
J such, is bound to carry safely whatever
goods are intrusted to ii for Transports
ton, within the course of its business ID
the end Of its route, and there deposit
them in suitable place for their owners
or consignees If the road of the com
pany connects with other roads, and
goods are received for transportation be
y0nd the termination of its own line
: there is superadded to its duty as com
mon carrier that of a forwarder BIZ the
connecting line, that it is, to deliver
safely the goods to such line-the mex
carrier on the route beyond. This for
warding duty arising from the obligation
implied in taking the goods for a poin
beyond its own line. The common Law
imposes no greater duty than this. L
more is expected from the company re
eeiving the shipment, there must b,
0 special agreement for it. This is til,
: doctrine of this court, although differ
ent rule of liability is adopted in En-
: gland and in some of the States Al
was said in X. r. Co. V. Manuf. Co. II
Wall, 324, sit is unfortunate for the in
terests of commerce that there is am
diversity of opinion on such subject
especially in this country, but the ruI
o that holds the carrier only liable to tn
extent of his own route, and for tn
safe storage and delivery TO the mex
> carrier, is in itself so Just and reason
. able that we do not hesitate to give i
! our sanction" This doctrine was ap
y proved in the subsequent case of r. r
st Co. V. Pratt, % Wall, 123, although tn
contract there was to carry through tn
: :. whole route. Such contract, NAV. O
. ! course, be made with any one of differ
ent connecting lines. There is no obieC
= ton in law to a contract of the kind
I with its attendant liabilities. See. alsc
: ms. Co. V. r. r. Co 104 L. S. Isl
The general doctrine, then, as To trans
) portation By connecting lines, approve
: by this court and also by majority G
is the State courts, amounts to this: tina
each road combining itself to its commo
Is law liability, is only bound al tie GJseat
1t Of a special contract. to safely carry Owe
v its own route and safely to deliver t
), the next connecting carrier, bit that al
one Of the companies may agree that 0rer II
u sehote route IT. liability shall ertead.
1t is here decided
: LIST. That contract by a Railroa
= company extends "to the end of i
route
: End. That in the absence of speci
:, contract with company connectir
n with other lines no liability is incurred
e ''but that any one of the companies ma
agree that over its whole route its liabil
ty shall extend"
:. Some danger might exist of the esta
:. lishment of competing rates by cote
! minus States, but this would be east
= aYerted by each acting in harmony wit
:. the other