Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-01-14
EAr1Rosb DISCRIMINATION AND HE REM


 torial Legislature ostensibly to prevent unjust discrimination on the part of railroads in carrying freight and psssen- gers. While the CITIZEN is not the champion of the railroads or any other special interest, 1T believes ID looking at all these questions fairly and squarely, and with a due regard to all the cireum- stances. Discrimination is a law of trade as old and well established as the law of supply and demand. The im- practicability and the manifest injustice of an inAexible rule must he apparent to any intelligent man who will stop to consider the question. l. would pre- vent a healthy competition. Two roads may reach a common point m different ways, but one line Is longer than the other. Under an iuhexlble rule the short line would monopolize the busi- ness. When railroads are brought into competition with water communication it would be impossible for the railroads to compete. if they were compelled to make the through rates the same as local rates. The circum- stances of different roads are not the same What woIld be fair rate upon one would be ruinous to another, so that an infiexible rule Is practically impos- sible.
 All these difficulties lace every at tempt to legislate upon this question. Legislation is necessarily general and when attempted has sigually failed to reach some cases and in others it has wrought manifest injustice and worked positive injury to the public. As a result, in the older sections of the country attempts at restrictive legisla- tion have ceased aud business IS left to the control of the natural laws of com merce aided by the control which the common law gives to the courts over railroads as common carriers. The ad- vantage the courts have in dealing with unjust discriminations and kindred questions. over the Legislature lies in the fact that tine courts deal with special eases sad take into consideration the different circumstances of each, while the Legislature has Co treat the ques- tiou. fl it treats It at al, in gener a way.
 In the eastern States these questions are taken to the courts rather than to the Legislative bodIes, and the results show that the courts succeed better ln doing justice to both the public and the railroads. The Legislature should give the question very careful consideration before it repeats the history of the fail ure of railroad legislation in the older sections of the country with thelr at tendant evils both to the corporations and the people.
 The Philadelphia Press has the fol lowing able discussion upon this ques- tion which We reproduce for the benefit of our readers particularly those en- gagged iu the manufacture our laws:
 The tcnor of recent decisions on the question of railroad rates gives ground for the belief that the true solution OI she railroad question lies through the courts rather than through Legislation. In favorlug one class of patrons and some places at the expense of other patrons and pa ;es railroads violate their obligations as common carriers. These obligations, however, are subject to modification according tO the vary Ing conditions under winch the railroad ,ets and conducts its business. Laws are unable to meet these cJndItl0ns. 10 fix rates arbitrarily IS impracticable and to lay down a formula to which the companies must adhere uniformly, brings about results not contemplated uor desired. Competition gives certain 5oints an. advantage over others for rt-----u- SsV.Jriile rates. 1T. f-T--re'i the rR4sroads to cut down thoir local rates to correspond with throu h and competing rates, is to make them do their way business often at a loss. To charge way freights at terminal and competing points wOnld also compel the long lines to surrender the business at these points to their shorter rivals. Courts. on the other hand, can take cognizance of all the circumstances, and compel the railroads to deal justly with all their patrons without causing the companies unnecessary embarrassment iu the conduct of their business. Judge McCrary, of the United States Circuit Court, recently rendered a decision winch, whenever enforced, will give the gnti-monopolists almost all they are demanding with any show Of right. The Supreme Cour: of Illinois follows m the same vein. The case before i'
 vas the right of a railroad to charge GG per cent. larger rate for a haul from Gilman, III, tO New York than tiom Peoria to New York. when the distance from Peoria IS ciEhjy-sIx miles greater than from Gilmaa. The case involved the constitutionality of the railroad law Df Illinois and the authority of the rail road commissioners to regulate freight charges. The discriminating charge against Gilman the court held to be unjust, excessive, extortionate and unlawful" On this poInt the decision, follows the Circuit Court decision, holding the rate unlawful, unjust and excessive If 1t is established that rail roads are bound as common carriers to receive all freight offering at a reason- able recomPense, which IS the same for all, there IS DO need of special legisla- ton on the subject, as courts can give -hippers full redress for extortionate and unequal charges. and there IS no other substantial grievance.