Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-03-10

| HaOiou Ut not, ana tnat the same diner
ence, might in one instance be held a
violation of the law, and in another
not" thus making the guilt or
innocence of the accused dependent upon
the finding of the jury, and not upon a
construction of the act. ''This," he said,
81 think can not be done "
If this decision is authoritative, it is
conclusive of this part of this case. We
think the decision clearly right. Cues
lions as to what is a reasonable time for
the performance of contract, or reason
able compensation for work and labor
| done by one man at the request of another
without any stipulation as to the price to
be paid, and other like cases, frequently
| arise in civil controversies. But the law
furnishes IN all such cases a standard of
! compensation for the guidance of the
! jury. Without such legal standard there
| could be no reasonable approximation to
! uniform results; the verdicts of iuries
/ would be as variant as their preiudices.
and this could not be tolerated To thus
! relegate the administration of the law to
| the unrestrained discretion of the jury:
to thus authorize them to determine
| the measure of damages and then
! assess the amount to which a
plaintiff may be entitled, would inevitably
lead TO lnequlties and to injustice. Hence
Tue statute under consideration under
takes to supply this desideratum by which
| Jurles are to be governed in the determi-
nation OF the questions submitted to them.
That standard is ''that no rates or charges
| for services in the TRANSPORTATION of freight
over any railroad, shall be held or cOnsid-
cred eXtOrtiOnate or excessive under any
| proceeding under this act. if it appears
! from the evidence that the net earnings
| from its passenger and other traffic would
not amount to more than a fair and Just
| return on the value of which such rail-
roads with its appurtenances and equip
| ments to be assessed for tanatiOn"
This definition is somewhat obscure
But, however interpreted, it does not OBJ
| yiate the objection made or mitigate it's
| force, but intenSifes pre-eXisting doubts.
| The value is to be the amount at which
the road, its appurtenances and equip
| ments ''dre to be assessed for tara
| ton" But what assessments to govern?
| the one made before or after the alleged
over charge or prohibited discrimination?
! The language of the act is ''tO be assessed"
But we will not tarry here. Suppose the
| value satisfactorily ascertained, how
and upon what basis are the
| net earnings to be computed?
| Is the estimate to be based on past re-
celpts, current income or anticipated
earnlngSy Is the accused corporation to
be held to anticipate its future operations,
toresee the amount Of its receipts and eX-
| pendltures and accurately fOreknOw its
| future profits and losses, 50 as to be able
| to strike balance in advance of actual
results in order to make its charges con-
| form to the requirements of the statute?
II so, how far in the future must their fore
! knowledge extend? These are some of
the many difficulties with which railroad
companies are to be embarrassed and
against which the act requires them to
provide. But we will suppose these to
have been successfully surmOunted, and
another and more obstinate problem re-
mains. These corporations are in addi-
| ton to their expenses allowed to charge
at rate that will insure ''fair
and just return" on the value
of their property. But what is a fair
and just return? This vital question is
by the act left to the unqualified and I'M
restrained discretion of the jury. There
is no legal standard erected whereby the
jury can measure the amount. One jury
may fix it at 2 or per cent. per annum,
! while another jury may, in view of bust
ness contingencies and fluctuating values,
allow g, or 10 per cent, and their action
would be so far conclusive as to be beyond
the revision OF any reviewing court. The
facts that the jury are to ascertain are,
first, the net earnings; and, secondly,
what would be fair and just return"
The ascertainmento fnet earnings involves
necessarily an inquiry into the
SluS5 Itttlpl5 anu expenditures. May
the jury revise the expense account, and,
If so, 10 what extent? Both the earn
lngs and expenses vary in accordance
with the eXlgencies of business. Are
rates to be varied in accordance with the
t1uctuating fortunes Of railroad opera
tiOnsy If so, charge reasonable in
itself and honestly made might be rem
dered eXtortionate, and hence criminal,
by reduction of expenses or an uneX-
pected increase OF business, or a charge
honestly made on the supp0sitiOn that
or per cent. would be fair and lust,
might be converted into crime by the
verdict of jury subsequently rendered,
based, it may be, upon facts transpiring
subsequent to the alleged violation of the
law.
We think the property of citizen-and
railroad corporation is, in legal cOntem-
platiOn, a citiZen-cannOt be thus imDer-
lied by such vague, uncertain and lndeti-
mite enactments. The corporations and
persons against whom this act is directed
can do nothing under it with reasonable
safety. They may take counsel of the
commission, act upon their advice and
honestly endeayOr to conform to the stat
ute. But if a jury, before whom they may
be subsequently arraigned, shall, in their
Judgment and upon such arbitrary basis
as they are at liberty to adopt, conclude
that the Commissioners misadvised or that
the managers of the accused railroad cor
pOratiOn made a mistake in regulating
their charges upon 5per-cent. instead Of
4-per-cent. basis, the honesty and good
faith of the accused will go for nothing,
and penalty upon penalty may be added I'M
til the defendants property shall be grad
ually transferred to the public. This can
not be permitted. Penalties can not be
thus inflicted at the discretion of the jury.
Before the property of a citizen, natural
ar 40 hp
crime for which the penalty is inflicted
must be defined by the law-making power.
The Legislature can not delegate this
power to a jury. If it can declare it a
criminal act for a railroad corporation to
take more than flair and just return
on its investments, it must, in order to the
validity of the law, define with reasonable
certainty what would constitute such ''fair
and just return" The act under review
does not do this, but leaves it to the jury
to supply the omission. No railroad CON-
pany can possibly anticipate what view
a jury may take of the matter, and hence
can not know in advance of verdict
whether its charges are lawful or unlaw-
full. One jury may convict for a charge
made on a basis of 1 per cent. whilst
another might acquit an accused who
had demanded and received at the rate of
6 per cent, rendering the statute in its
practical working as unequal and unjust
in its operation as it is indefinite in its
terms. No citizen, under the protection
of this court, can be cOnstitutiOnally sub
jected to penalties and despOied of his
property in a criminal or quasi criminal
proceeding under and by force of such in
definite legislation.
The act furthermore conflicts with the
eighth section of the eleventh article of
the State constitution, and the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The first of these provides
that "the Legislature shall have no power
to suspend any general law for the benefit
OF any particular individual, nor to pass
any law for the benefit of individuals IN
consistent with the general laws of the
land; nor to pass any law granting to
any Individual or individuals rights,
privileges, immuRities or exemptions,
other than such as may be, by the same
law, extended TO every member of the
community who may be able 10 bring
himself within the provisions of such
law and the last-thefOurteenth amend
ment-prOhibits the States from ''depriv-
ing any person Of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law, or denying to
any person within their jurisdiction the
equal protection of the law" 1t is not
necessary for us to undertake, in this
case, to define the boundaries or limit the
operation of these just constitutional re-
strictiOns upon legislative authority.
Their general object is to secure to all citi-
Zens in like circumstances an equality of
legal rights, and to protect minOrities and
other interests not strong enough to pro-
tect themselves against the aggressions
of the majority; to restrain all Injurious
legislative discrimination against persons
and property; to compel an equal dlstri-
button of the burdens of government upon