Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-04-26

EVENEN0s AEhAo ~
Freight Determinations
The Legislature will need to supple
ment the legislation it proposes to pre-
vent undue discrimination in the
carriage charges of railroads, by pro-
v;d;np q commission which shall have
authority to supervise railroad rates and
reduce them to consistency and fairness.
The railroads themselves teach the state
how to secure proper rates of freight
from conflicting interests. The chle1
railroads of the country have selected
one man to act as commissioner or arDl-
ter between them, to whose decision
they pledge themselves to yield ooedl'
ence.
AS it is clearly impracticable for
the Legislature to provide, by statute, a
set of freight rates to meet every vary
ing exigency and circumstance 1t VIII
need to deposit this authority with an
agent for whom it will outline in the
law the general boundaries OF his as
creion. It will declare its purpose 10 De
that every citizen shall be treated alike
Inv the common carriers Of the state.
like price being charged to all for
q. like service. When it has formu-
lated this principle in a shape satis-
factory to, it, and has declared the
penalty that will be incurred by a
violation of its direction, it will then be
proper for it TO confide to an agent or
agents the duty of seeing that its in
tention is executed and its violation
punished.
A state commission which will fix
railroad rates will be of advantage, both
to the companies and their customers.
The proposed law makes the jury the
Judges of the question of undue discrim-
ination. 1t is a very good place to leave
it. But it would greatly facilitate the
case of the relations between the rail
roads and the public to have an interme
diate tribunal, clothed with state author
ity to which complaint might be made and
by which the question of the fairness OF
a discrimination in rates might be first
decided. Either the railroad or its Gus
toners would have in reserve re
course to the decision of the jury, bu,
they would seek it handicapped with
the state commissioner ruling against
them which would be protection Il
the railroad company, if it happened tt
be in its favor that would be valuable
oft, in its appearance before jury
when it would be apt to need all the pro
lection it can get, since the abuse o.
their power by railway managers ha
not served to endear them tt
the heart of the juryman. Th'
state commission would be of great ait
in securing the citizen from unjust
freight charges. The resort to a jury fol
redress will be troublesome, and Will bt
avoided by the large customers OF the
railroad as tending to create inimica
relations where their plain interests re.
. quire them to keep on friendly term:
with their powerful carrier. The state
commission will relieve them of the nee
essity of fighting the railroad, if it con
siders them unjustly charged, for il
would in that case be made its duty tt
bring the weight of its office to beal
upon the corporation to correct it
charge in accordance with the rates tbt
commission is authorized to establish.
In some states these rates are made
imperative upon the railroads. Th'
question of the right of the state to thu
impose them is now being tested in th'
supreme court. But 1t is a question
whether, even though the state has thi!
authority, it would be advisable to make
the decision of its commission final, ant
whether better results may not be Ob
tained by leaving to jury in each cas'
the ultimate decision as to the fairness
Of the charge. A commission author
lied to establish rates and empowered
to bring before jury railroad disre
garding them, and submitting to TIT
jury the question as to whether the rail
road has not been guilty of undue dis
elimination in the rates it has persisted
in charging, would give the people al
the protection they need, and certainly
need not be challenged as receiving al
unconstitutional authority. There is NJ
getting away from the right of jur!
to stop cheating.