Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-05-26
A Poor Outcome.

EVENING" MAI 20 AooSs
4 Poor Outcome.
The action of the Senate upon the
railroad discrimination bill was no more
than we expected, but that does not
moderate the disgust with which we
view it. The bill, as adopted, is about
as ineffective as it could be madc. Sen
ator Lee is reported to have said in the
Senate that the proposition that was &C.
cepted by the Senate and whose putative
father was Senator Stewart was in the
exact language of a bill sent in by a
railroad company. Whether or no this
be the fact it is easily under
stood how it should be most accept
able to all the railroad companies
that desire a free rein to charge what
they please and nullify the constitutional
requirement. that they shall charge
every one alike. This bill will not dis
turb them in their wish, and its only
redeeming feature, that makes it OF any
value to the people, is the section that
was secured only by the casting vote OF
the lieutenant governor, which forblds
the officers of railroad companies to be
interested in furnishing supplies to their
companies under severe penalty OF
fine and imprisonment. Some OF the
senators were not so tender.fOOted when
they were asked to protect the compan.
les from being swindled by tEeir officers
as they were when they were called upon
to protect the public from being cheated
by them for the latter offense they re
fused to vote fine and imprisonment,
but for the former a sufficient number
of votes were secured by the skin of the
teeth.
The first section of the bill as passed
by the Senate says that undue discrimi-
nation in charges |" is hereby declared to
be unlawful" That declaration was
unnecessary, as the constitution has
long ago declared this to be unlawful
what the Legislature had to do was to
provide the penalty for the unlawful act,
and to define it, if it was not done with
sufficient precision in the constitution.
But it was not compliance with the
mandate of the constitution to proceed
in the second section, not to define, but to
limit the discrimination which the funda-
mental law prohibited. The first section
declares to be unlawful what the constitu
tiOn declares to be q; the second section,
while apparently repeating what the first
section has declared, proceeds to modify
and limit the broad declaration of the
constitution against undue discrimina
tion, and emasculates it so as to make it
meaningless. This section concludes
with prescribing penalty for violation
of "this provision :" probably intend
ing the" provision of the second sec
tion which provision in substance for
bids any common carrier from making
undue discrimination between its custo-
mers /" for a like service from the same
place upon like conditions and under
similar circumstances"
Was there ever a more indefinite en-.
actment; or one more abundantly calling
for Interpretation from the courts to
keep it from being so? Where will two
shipments of freight he made ''under
similar circumstances That is the
question thrust upon the courts and
juries. When they consider the cir
cumstances of shipment not to be ex-
actly similar, they may relieve the rail.
road from the penalty; and to prove
such circumstances to be exactly similar
will be a Herculean undertaking, in view
of the fact that no two things in the
world are just alike, and no two sets
of circumstances exactly correspond.
Does this section prohibit railroad
from charging more for carrying freight
from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia than
from Chicago? ? The men who framed
its language evidently think not the
circumstances are not similar evidently:
but neither will the circumstances be
similar under which two Pittsburgh
merchants ship their goods in two differ
ent days one day the railroads cars
may be empty and the next they may be
full one day the rails may be covered
with snow, or they may be wet, or dry !;
the traction may be different. In fact
the circumstances affecting the cost of
carrying goods may vary in an infinite
number of ways. Even from the same
place not much, perhaps but what is
to determine how much of a variation
shall affect the price
We object to this bill, also, that the
penalty is likely to be ineffective. The
person injured is permitted to recover by
suit three times the amount of his dam
ages. The damages probably would be
considered to be the difference between
the price charged and the price that
ought to have been. Unless on very
large shipment they would be in
considerable and treble the amount
would not compensate the railroads $ Gus
toner for the trouble and cost of lssu
ing it with a suit that would drag its
slow length along for years the custo
mer, meanwhile, contending with a
great railroads disposition to punish
him for his temerity in suing its officers
1t is safe to say that a railroad
will not be called upon often to re-
spond to claims for thesemeagred damages
A question will arise as to whether thu
penalty applies to violation of the first
section as we'll as the second. If so,