The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1884-02-21
The Veto Message.


pretended TO assert. The policy Of any
supervision at all ia, in this State, not
yet even 80 much az an experiment; and
yet, recognizing tho existence Of the
power in the State 70 exercise some SUI
peryisory police over the colossal
tboroughfares which railroad corpora
tions are running through our territory
and over the property Of our people, and
Of the need that this power should
now be carefully and yet firmly exer-
ci-ed the bill in question was intended
only as beginning, and that it's proyi-
sions should, from tho start, be upon a
sliding scale and adjustable, from time
10 time, by its commissioners, always
under the surveillance ef the courts, az
experience and observation should seem
to require. Such supervision the peo-
pie Of the State have long and earnestly
demanded, and TO it, enactment and
fulillment the Democratic party and
all its chosen aud authorized opponents
have long and repeatedly been pledged.
And while there may be, as we have
said, some room for honest criticism and
difference Of opinion IA to some of the
details Of the bill passed by the House
of Representatives, we respectfully sub
nit that the Governor has utterly failed
in his veto message to occupy or to dis
cover any of these grounds. In other
words, we maintain that If there were
no other objections to the bill than
those pointed out by his Excellency in
his veto, there would probably have
been no formidable or serious opposi.
ton to its passage in either House and
that, if there could be no more plausible
argument than those contained in the
veto, even now the opponents of the
measure would "fold their tents and
like Arabs, silently steal away"
Let us examine very briefly some of
the more important objections" which
the Governor gives as he says, ain
detail"
For example, he says that the first sec.
ton Of the bill contains its "sole defini
milton of extortOn" As the onense of
extortion vas already very well defined
aud has been for some few centuries past
it is respectfully suggested that no fur
Their general definition was needed thar
merely to state, IA the first section does
that any person or corporation whose
charges Of railroad transportation shal
exceed the established rates "shall b,
guilty of extortion' And these estab
ishCd rates are to be taken rs onl,
primd facie just and, not conclusive upor
either person or corporation; it is sub
mittcd that sole definition" is ampl,
sufficient for the understanding anC
appreciation of even the most artes,
and unlcarned understanding. The cor
poration or person can always defend
itself against legal proceedings, civil OF
criminal, in respect to its charges, by
showing that its charges are 'just," anC
can be convicted only upon proof thai
It's charges are unjust In other words
the principles and doctrine of qudnhin
vdlebat and gUaHtam mcruH would apply
as to the services of railroads and rail
road men rs they always did and still dc
to the services of all other persons, witt
the addition of such legal sanctions Al
will enforce their observance,
Nor is the possibility that cone jur,
may differ from another in opinion a,
to the same state of facts" any argu
ment, constitutional or otherwise, against
the bill which authorizes a trial by this
~ in all other cases. To our mind Hi,
Excellency's reflections upon this poin
would apply rather againstall jury trial,
than to the jury trials provided for in
this bill,
And His EXcelency is certainly very
inconsiderate in assuming that there i,
no standard for changes provided for in
the bill That standard is erected in
the tariff of charges to be prescribed by
the commission; and that tariff, open
always to revision and correction BY the
courts at the instance of the railroad
companies themselves and upon proof
that the rates are inadequate.
All that his Excellency says about the
uncertainty of the tariffs contemplated
by the bill falls idly and inuocently to
the ground, and the entire certainty, as
we'll as the adjustability of the scale of
charges, becomes one of the most shining
qualities of this bill.
Again, His Excellehcy expresses his
apprehension that as this bill provides
in certain cases railroad property may
be assessed by different agent than that
of the ordinary assessor, and repeals 50
much of the existing law as requires that
property to be assessed by the assessor,
and the law being, as he asserts, "beyond
question, unconstitutional and void "
Z q H., H.. u. L l..