The Aberdeen examiner. [volume] (Aberdeen, Miss.) 1866-current, 1884-02-21
Governors Message NetGing the
Railroad supervision Bill
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

| return YOU herewith without my
approval House Bill No. It's, entitled
can act to provide for the regulation
of freight and passenger rates on rail.
roads, and for the taxation of the
property Of railroad companies in this
State, and for other purposes"
1t is proper, in view Of the impor
lance Of the subject matter of the
! Bill, and of the serious character OF
my objections thereto, that | should
give you in detail the reasons which
constrain me to Withholding approval
BY section of the Bill, it is de,
clared that, ''any person or corpora
ton engaged in the business of trans
porting passengers or freight on any
railroad in this State, who shall exact
or receive for any such transportation
more than just compensation for the
services rendered, or demand more
than the rates specified in any bill OF
lading issued by such person or cor
poration, or who for his or its adyan-
tage, or for the advantage Of any con
Meeting line, or of any person or To-
cality, shall make any unjust dis
elimination against any individual,
locality or corporation, shall be guilty
of extortion, and in every case it shall
be for the jury to determine, from all
the evidence, whether more than Just
compensation was exacted and re-
ceived, or whether any such dlscrimi-
nation in transportation, which may
be established by the evidence against
the individual, locality or corpora
ton, as the case may be, was made
for the benefit or advantage Of the
person or corporation operating such
railroad, or of any person or locality"
This is the sole definition of extor-
ton contained in the Bill. There is
no provision making the tariff to he
prescribed by the Commission obi.
gatory upon either railroad compa-
MES or those dealing with them. That
tariff is to be deemed prima facie evil
dence Of the justice Of its provisions,
but is not conclusive in any sense
whatever. lfa shipper is not salts
fed with the rates fixed by the Com
mission, and has been compelled to
pay them, he can recover of the cor
poration receiving them, if he can es-
tabish that the rates 50 demanded
and received, are unjust, twice the
amount of the overeharge, for the
finding of the Commission is only
prima facie evidence of its correct
ness.
So if a corporation refuses to con
form its tariff to the rates prescribed
by the Commission, it may, neverthe-
less, successfully defend against the
charge Of extortion, if it can show
that the compensation demanded and
received by it is just.
Section three, it is true, protects a
corporation which adopts the tariff
prescribed by the Commission, from
indictment, but it does not protect it
from II civil suit, based upon the
charge that the compensation de-
manded by it is unjust.
1t will thus be seen that the Bill
fixes no limit which it shall be un-
lawful to exceed, and lays down no
rule by which a railroad company
can determine whether its charges
are just or unjust. 1t is safe if its
charges are just; it is subject to in
dictment if its charges are unjust; but
whether such charges are Just or I'M
Just cannot be ascertained by any
thing contained in the Bill, but is to
be determined solely by the jury be-
fore which the question may be tried.
No corporation though honestly de-
sirous Of arranging its tariff upon a
fair and just basis, could ever know
whether Or not it was free from in
dictment, unless, indeed, it should
surrender its convictions, and yield
absolutely and unqualifedly to the
tariff fixed by the Commission, wrong,
and unjust though that might be.
No standard is prescribed by which
it could know whether it was exact
ing, just or unjust compensation, or
making just or unjust discrimina-
ton, against persons, localities or
corporations.
1t may exact compensation which
in the exercise of its honest iudg-
ment, it considers just, and yet if it
should be charged with extortion, and
the jury trying the case should be of
a different opinion, it would be con-
victed and punished.
Again, upon a precisely same
charge being made, another and
different jury, may agree with the
company, and decide that the com
pensation condemned by the FIRST jury
was just and proper.
Here would be two different YER
diets based upon the same state of
facts, Numerically opposed to each
other, and neither furnishing any safe
rule for guidance in future.
So it might be that a company
would be subjected to countless pros
ecutions, being sometimes convicted
and sometimes acquitted according
to the peculiar caprices or preiudices
of the juries trying the various cases,
and at last the question whether the
compensation Or discrimination com
planned OF was just or unjust would
remain unanswered, in doubt and
confusion.
Such law is harsh and oppressive
beyond description, and clearly vic.