The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-06-10
Once More.

IN the case OF the n VI. ~ a., tllt
court decided that the railroads could not
90 beyond the maximum rates granted.
We would ask our esteemed cotempoTary
to examine the rates and then say frankly
if the railroads would wish to 90 beyond
such charges Instead Of going beyond
the rates actually granted the railroads,
both az to freights and passengers, would
be satisfied 70 receive a much lower COM
pensation. These rates being prescribed IN
the charter the commission could simply /
reiterate what the law has already fixed.
Their decision on the question could affect /
the rights neither OF the railroads nor the
people, az both are settled.
Is to the charter Of the Natchez and /
Jackson road, the court has decided that |
only reasonable rates can be charged. True, |
the rates 10 be fixed by the commission are |
prjma facie correct, but Is it worth the ex-
pense Of railroad commission merely to |
use that power? As Judge PeytOn in his |
admirable decision suggested, at all times
the railroads were bound by the rule Of
law a. to reasonableness, and any citizen
iaiured could seek redress in the courts OF
law. Who believes for a moment :hat the
railroads will remain silent and passive II
the rates proposed by the commission do
not suit them? They will fight the case
from one court to another until the last
tribunal has settled the law and we can see
no advantage gained by the people until
decision is reached which would settle what
constituted reasonable rates. The prlncl-
pal ground for controversy was that the
rallroads charged more in proportion Tor
freight shipped a short distince than for
long distances, more for a few articles than
for a carload. In other words, discrImina-
ton was what they sought to prevent, and
to force the railroads 10 charge Just the
same to one point as to another, distances
being taken into consideration, and to
charge the man who received a box OF
matches the same rate charged one who
each year received thousands Of dollars OF
| goods. Have the supervisionists gained
! victory on that score?
The Supervision Bill was aimed espe-
cially against any discrimination which
the act defines to be extortion. The de
clsion makes reasonable charges the test OF
what is right, and under the decision a very
different rule would be laid down from
that contemplated in the Superv ision bill.
As to the question Of police powers we
| did not know Of any special demand for a
railroad commission to enforce them, and
we doubt if the supervisionists would care
| Tor paving the commissioners to enforce
them.
We believe that many features OF the
| Supervision Bill would be left out OF a new
| bill Grawn up in accordance with the de-
clsiou, amongst other things the eXtortion
clause against discrimination, one of the
most important features of the bill acted
| upon by the courts. 1t Is very we'll to
! have the rates posted. etc, but we can not
see that the commission is required Tor
| this the law could be enforced without
them as to that. The question now pre-
| sented is whether the fact that the rates to
| be established by the commission are 10 be
! held prima facie correct in certain cases Is
sufficient to justify the expense OF com
| mission which comes out OF the tax PAYERS
Of the State. We believe not and we ex-
pect to see the day, and that ere many
years have passed, when the whole State
will so believe
The Supervision Bill has accomplished
this much, that in cases where a maximum
rate is not fixed in the railroad charter
only reasonable rates can be charged As
this was true at common law we cannot
see what advantage has been gained, OF
will be retained by paying the commits
sioners.-I azoo city Herald.
Our esteemed contemporary correctly
states the method of determining (which
party sustained defeat in the decision
recently rendered by the Supreme
Court" but curiously enough exercises
the privilege of judging the correctness
of its views advanced in former article
from which we will presently quote, by
an entirely different method.
The present discussion was caused by
an editorial in the Herald, in which
are to be found the following among
other expressions:
''If the decision of Judge CAMPBELL
is to be taken as final we see no reason
why the taxpayers of the State shoulc
be compelled topay fora useless luxury
"a supervision bill might be drawn NJ
in accordance with the decision which
no one would object to, requiring tina
the railroads publish rates, etc, but th'
com mission should be abolished"
To meet these and like expression
referred to was a complete victory TO
the Supervisionists as to all but two o
the railroads being operated in Missis
sippi, to-wit, the Iazoo and Mississippi
Valley railroad, and the Canton, Nash
Vile and Aberdeen railroad.
In meeting this effort on our part GU
esteemed contemporary vainly imagine
that he fortifes his side of the issue, b
showing that some of the Supervisionist:
| ~ bar l. nv
heretofore urged that charter grante
by the legislature was privilege and no
contract" So far as we are concerne
we will say that we have expressed tn
opinion that the right given to commo
carrier-a railroad corporation--by char
ter to fix and regulate its rates of trans
/, portation, is privilege and not cor
tract, but we are still at a loss to know
what thai has to do with the validity o
the Supervision law.
2 The views of the Supervisionists may
. at least, be as varied on the subject o
e the powers of the Legislature in thi
regard, as the views of railroad attol
neys, and one of these distinguishe
a member of the profession in this State
r took the ground boldly, that the Stat
/. could not grant to a railroad com pan
] the right to charge unreasonable rates
Judge PEYToN, Sin his admirabl
J. decision" TO quote our contemporary
held the same view, and yet til
| Supreme Court said that as to the Yazo
: and Mississippi Valley railroad th
n question of reasonableness had bee
a settled by contract for all time. Blu
:. this decision was based on the marimu
clause of the company's charter, which
to be found in the charter of but tw
| railroads now in operation in Mississippi
That point was decided against tn
Supervisionists and against the law
All other points were decided in thei
7 favor.
How can the law be declared useles
because two of the dozen or more rail
: roads.n.the State. and these not the mos
important, are shielded from one of it
; provisions.
If the Herald had sung the same oil,
: song after the decision that it san,
! before, we would probably have not sal,
] a word; but to charge that an act whicl
! had been sustained in all bu
. one of the pravisions disrussad h,