The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-01-14

al are also excessive, and will remain
e, unless Congress shall prevent it by leg
D. lation.
= The next cause of complaint Is. th
e these companies make undue and uniu
e discrimination in their rates, not on
} as between places but as between pc
e sens IN the same place. The power
9 DO this Is dangerous and its exercise e.
c ceedingly unjust. By il railros
r official can build up, and does build u
e his friends and fay0ritess and DESTROY
:, their rivals. By ii also cities aud tow
r in which the officials are interested. c
! tor which they have partiality. are ais
built up, and rival towns and citie
crippled and DESTROYED
: There are provisions In the bill rt
/ ported by the committee intended I
} correct these evils in part and 20 proven
: discrimination between persons. Their
Is no provision to prevent discrimination
between places, though IN my iudgmen
1t Is equally important
! Very little can be accomplished b,
the provision intended to secure reason
able rates owing 10 the absence Of pro
]
ing, and this is one Of the most serious
defects of the bill.
The mere enactment that charges shall
be reasonable is of no value. Ii merel,
declares what the common law already
Is. To make it of any value whatever
! there must be provisions which can be
/ emf breed, aud which when enforced will
! compel reasonable charges bv the rail
| road companies. Ii is utterly impractic.
/ able to enforce this provision as it stands
in the bill. If a suit be brought
/ for a violation of this provision. by
what standard Hhall the court and iury
! be guided in eE2easuring the reasonable
ness of the charge2 The bill furnishes
none. If we resort to the common Law
/ as 1t was applied and enforced in cases
/ OF other common carriers, we find that
! the standard there was the reasonable
/ and customary charges of the whole
body Of carriers doing the same busi-
ness. That presuppOses that there were
a body OF carriers engaged in like busi-
ness, and engaged also in competition
with each other in IT. The standard by
which the charges OF one was measured
was and could be only the average of
|
No court ever undertook to look into
the amount of the carriers investment
TO ascertain the cost of doing the work.
and then fixing reasonable profit as
the measure of the charge. Such a pro
ceeding is beyond the province of a court
and is pure invasion of the domain of
active business. Where competition is
free it is certain, bv an inexorable law
of trade, that exorbitant charges and
unreasonable profits Will be reduced to
the proper standard by such additional
investments in the business as will make
1t no more profitable than capital and
labor employed in other callings. This
competition Will soon regulate the prices
on the basis of reasonable profit; and
this can be done in no other way. In
the same way charges by railroads will
be made reasonable between points
where there is free competition, unless
there should be combination between
the companies to prevent it. If COM
petition be free Nand there are several
railroads, then the excessiTe and un-
reasonable charges Of one may by a
court be ascertained by comparison with
the charges Of the others for similar
service. If there be a combination be
tween the companies TO fix rates by pool
ing or otherwise then il is clear that
unless we adopt the rates thus fixed as
reasonable tHeTS can be no other
measure.
To adopt the rates thus fixed is to
leave the shipper as much at the mercy
OF the companies as If only one existed.
1t would be but the will of two con-
spirators instead of the will of one.
The combination would eliminate from
the charge ali consideration as to the
smallest sum at which the work could
be prohtably performed, and substitute
for this essential clement the viii and
greed only of the companies which by
the con- bination had secured themselves
! from the effects of the law of COMPETE
tion. 1t is thus clear that the provision
of the bill prohibiting unreasonable
charges is of itself of no value, mere
6rutea ftllmen, if there be no sure stand
ard provided capable of easy application
| by & .ury by which the charges can be
measured.
The just provision in the bill against
/ discrimination between shippers will not
furnish this standard, for if the general
charge be so much to the public, and
I
/ fayorites Of the company, the presump-
tion would be rather that these favorites
got their freights too low than that the
/ general charge WAS excessive aud un-
reasonable. Besides, the provision
/ against discrimination is not based on
/ the idea that others than their favorites
are charged too high, but that favors
injurious to business and the public
!
remedy be found in the provision for a
commission, for tAe commission is not
authorized to deteEmine and fix what
are reasonable charges. They have nc
1 judicial power; they can settle nothing
1 they can determine nothing; they can
order nothing except alone TO direct the
district attorney To institute in a court
a prohtless and expensive lawsuit III the
name of private party to see if posi-
BILE if the railroad company can be con
victed of making an unreasonable charge
with no standard whatever by which the
issue can be determined.
Mr.. President, this is so clear that
wonder why the committee deemed i
necessary to introduce into the bill pro
vision against unreasonable charges
withon: at the same time incorporating
IN it the only provision yet devised, sc
far as | know, which could make i
effective. 1t is the provision incorpor
ated in the House bill and also in Judg,
Reagan's substitute prohibiting pooling
| deem such a provision essential to am
bill which undertakes to deal with thil
subject.
| That provision about pooling, a
contained in the House bill, is as fol
lows
And # shall be unlawful for any person or per
SONS carrying property aforesaid 70 enter into an
contract agreement or combination for the pooin
of freights Of different and competing railroads, b.
dividing between them the aggregate OF net proceed
Of II earnings Of such railroads, or any portion
them.
| shall not now discuss this provision
, at any great length What / hav
already said in relation to competition
expresses in great measure what | con
, slider as the necessity for this prohibi
I ton against pooling. 1t seems TO be al
solutely essential to any effective legi;
: lation in restraint of unreasonabl
: charges. / am unable TO perceive an
r valid objection, either as to its justice o
: its policy. That there can be no res
= competition, and by it a just fixing G
| reasonable rates, is beyond controvers
/ if competing railroad companies are a
: lowed to combine in pooling of freight
e in whole or in part. That such comb
| nation will take place in the absence {
: strong and effective prohibitory legisl:
ton IS certain. The argu nent that poo
Y ing is necessary to prevent an undu
E emitting of rates will not stand the te,
i of examination That railroad con
f panies organized for the purpose {
+ making money are exempt from Ii
e ordinary influences which control me
Z in business, and will therefore pursue
o policy which win result in loss an