The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1884-12-11

law, and thatthe Commission report "less
discrimination, more stability in rates,
and fewer complaints than lave ever
heretofore existed" This is undoubtedly
true, but the reason for it does not nee
essarily prove the wisdom of the existing
law. There is no discrimination, but
there is great difference in freights me-
cessitated by the present law, and it
works alike ipjuriously to the railroads
and to certain communities. There is
stability of rates, because when the rate
to one place is changed it has also to be
changed to every other place on the
road: There is no complaint, because
complaints can accomplish nothing. The
law is being complied with, and neither
the Commission nor the railroads can
change the rate to suit the necessities of
local exigencies. Forinstance, We know
that there is complaint in Anderson
about the rate on car load of live stock
to Charleston, the charge from this point
being sixty dollars, while from Green
wood tits only thirty, and from Seneca
fifty dollars. The rates from Seneca and
from Greenwood are fixed BY the competi-
tion of the Augusta and Knoxville and
the Air Line Railroads, but the Company
have no right to reduce the rate to
Anderson without reducing every other
rate between Walhalla and Columbia.
The rate has, under the Law, to be greater
for longer than for shorter distance,
and must change every ten miles, so that
the Company cannot reduce Anderson
without also reducing all other rates.
The effect of this is that it pays shippers
to drive their cattle to Greenwood, rather
than ship from Andersen. The Compa-
ny, therefore, loses in freights by this.
The shipper is greatly inconvenienced,
and the price of live stock in this market
is made percepti5ly less than around
Greenwood. The people here lose by it.
The same thing is true of other lines OF
freight also.
The Committee give as an additional
reason that they want to leave the pres.
ent law to see how the Courts will decide
certain questions as to the powers of the
Commission as it now exists. This
reason appears specious to US, for if the
System is wrong it should not be allowed
to stand, simply to settle speculative legal
questions: and even if it is important, to
have these questions decided, it can very
easily be done BY saving clause in such
amendstory Act as might be passed. We
cannot, therefore, perceive the great force
of the argument that there are questions
of importance now before the Court. 1t
is rather an argument against than for
the system.
The Committee likewise take strange
position when they virtually admit that
the salaries of the Railroad Commission
sers ought to be paid by the State, and
that at the. right time they will favor
such a measure, but decline to afford the
relief which they admit ought to be
granted. They strike the keynote to
the trouble when they say action on This
matter might touch the whole system,
for,they evidently fear that the payment
of the salaries by the State would induce
many members to vote to repeal the Law.
Surely if the system is not strong enough
to permit the State to do what is admit
ted to be right, it ought to 60. We
know the Committee have labored under
difficulties in the present instance, but
the question, in our opinion, ought to be
squarely met, and determined upon its
merits. We believe that the law ought
to be so amended as to allow railroads to
charge the same for longer as for shorter
distances, where their business would
suggest it. For by this means no injury
would be done to any community, and
then the State ought to pay for her own
of6ces.
We believe that one Commissioner
with the powers given him under our
former Act or under the Massachusetts
Act, whereall the grievances are reported
directly to the Legislature, is the best,
the most conservative and the safest
system, though we do not believe any
great injury would be done by the pres
ent Law 30 amended as to permit railroads
to equalize freights along their lines and
require the State to pay the salaries of
her own officers. We believe one or the
other amendment to the present law
would prove advantageous to the people
of the State.