Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1884-01-13
The Bills of the Conn ainanfs and An.
swer of the Commissioners.

"
The Bills of the Com pIainanfs and An.
swer Of the Commissioners.
Nashville World, 18th: The bills OF the
complainants, the Louisville and Nash
vile Railroad Company and that of the
East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia
Railroad Company were read. The for
mer was very lengthy, being about 100
pages OF legal cap and consuming about
an hour and half in its reading. The
commissioners then presented an elabor-
ate affidavit in the nature of an answer to
the railroad bills, touching all the ma
terial questions raised by the bill. The
commissioners, in effect, demur to the
jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and
hold that the State courts are
the proper tribunals to adjudicate and
settle the questions at issue, inasmuch as
both complainants and defendants are in
fact and in law citizens OF the State of Ten
nessee. The commissioners deny that
they have violated, or intend to violate
any of the charter rights OF complainants,
but they do claim the authority, right and
power to revise and to reduce, if found to
be unjust or unreasonable, the tariffs of
complainants, and all other railroads in
the State, in the manner and to the extent
provided by the law under which they
are acting. They also claim the authority,
railroads below the maximum charges
mentioned in their charters, if such rates
are found to be excessive or eXtortionate,
unjust or unreasonable. They deny that
they have done any wrongful act or any
thing in relation to the tariffs of complain
ants that will warrant the court in grant
ing the Injunction prayed for.
Complainants claim i'll their bill to have
made no charges above the maximum
mentioned in their charter, and the COM
missioners deny this and make an exhibit
OF the printed tariff of the complainants
in support of this denial, and specifically
mention number OF instances where they
charge higher rates than the maximum
allowed by their charter; and the COM
missioners further hold that the Legisla-
ture never parted with but reserved the
right to regulate the tariff OF the roads
within the maximum rate mentioned in
their charters, or to raise them above such
maximum il the same should appear to be
reasonable and right. ComplainantS also
deny the allegations in the bill that they
are interfering with or attempting to regu-
late interstate commerce within the mean
ing OF the constitution of the United States
The commissioners also hold that the
ownership OF the roads by the corporation
is in trust for the public as well as for the
DuL lllelT llfSI ana primary
obligation is to the public. The commits
sion further hold that the act of the Gen
eral Assembly of Tennessee, under which
they are acting as commissioners, was
passed in conformity to the usages, Gus
toms and practices of the General
Assembly, as also in accordance with the
provisions of the State constitution aud in
support OF their position, refer to the
journals OF the General Assembly, before
and since the adoption of the present con-
stitution itself.
The commissioners admit the allegations
in the bill that they had requested COM
plainants and other railroad companies in
the State to reduce their rates on the trans
portation of cotton, believing such re-
quested rates to be fair and reasonable
compensation for the services performed,
but they say that no load had adopted such
| requested rates except the Chesapeake,
| Ohio and Southwestern Railroad Company,
and which was promptly done, and greatly
to the relief and satisfaction of its patrons.
The commissioners also admit the allie
cations in the bill that they had proposed
4 "basis" by which to revise the tariffs of
the various railroads of the State ranging
from five miles and less to 600 miles, but
they deny that the preparation of such
basis for so long distance was intended
the reason it was prepared for such dis
tance was because the State of Tennessee
from extreme east to west was about 600
| miles. The commissioners further DENY
the charge in the bill that their request of
the complainants and other railroads to
reduce their cotton rates to Memphis, in
West Tennessee, was intended to benefit
Memphis to the prejudice OF New
Orleans, or any other commercial
city, but because such requested
rates appeared to be a fair compensation
for the seryices-that they have asked the
same rates to Nashville, in Middle and, to
East Tennessee, based on distance as had
been asked of the roads in West Tennes-
see. They further say that Memphis is
the usual and natural market for West
Tennessee, as Nashville is for Middle Ten
nessee, and that shippers are entitled to
fair rates thereto, no matter what other
markets may be affected thereby.
The commissioners also exhibit the an
nual report of complainants to them OF
the operation of their road from June 80,
1882, to June 80, 1888, showing their net
income and other matters therein to mega
tive the allegation in the bill that com
plainants were not making fair profit on
its prOperty,