Signal-Copiahan. (Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1886-01-14
Representative iarksdale on the Rail.
road Commission Decision.

Special 10 the mes-DcmOcrat.
Washington, Jan. THE Scna'
tors aud Representatives from Missis-
sippi have been slow to express them
selves concerning the decision Of the
Supreme Court In the rhilroad com.
mission case brought here FROM that
State, and which just now Is occupy
ing 40 much attention in both railroad
and political circles. They have pre-
fcrrcd the decision with the care that
its importance deserved and demand
ed before giving out for publication
anything on the subject. Today,
however, The Times Democrat cor
respondent in a long conversation
with Mr.. Barksdale, gathered what
may be characterized rs the Mississip-
pi view Of the case.
Mr.. Barkslalc, by the way, Is
particularly well qualified to discuss
the matter, since It was he who draft
ed the Democratic State platform Of
1886, IN which q commission to super
wise the charges OF railroad companies
was first advocated. Every success
Two Democratic State convention Of
Mississippi rcailirmcd the doctrine I'M
Ill in 1883, after bitter fight, the
State Legislature enacted a law en-
bodying the doctrine. Mr.. Barksdhle,
therefore, may be considered rs in
fact the father Of the law. lie said
to-day; "The court decided that
there was nothing In the charter Of
railroad companies which prevented
the State from passing the law to-. su-
pervise them, and to appoint q COM
mission to carry tn, law into effect;
that the law Ia constitutional and that
there was not the room to assume that
the commission would transgress the
bounds OF tho authority delegated
to Il. The court below announced
the doctrine that one Legislature
could ALLEVIATE the power Of n subse.
quent Legislature and retain u ftoIh
controlliong corporations.
1t is significant that the Supreme
Court does not affirm this dangerous
doctrine. IL IL clear from the decision
that the State can recover from the
railroads the attorneys fees spent in
defending the cases, aud it's reason
able inference that It raa also recover
from the railroads the salaries Of the
commission. which, y. whilc pending
the litigation, they were restrained
from rendering any return for. 'aio''
$40 you sec any reason wiy'this
decision should SO Cypress the railroads
as to discourage them from further de-
veloping your Statc?' "''
- None whatever. There is no de-
sire to Cypress the railroad companies.
On the contrary, the people Of Ais'is-
sippi hold out all reasonable cneour-
agcment by such enterprises: But
they have a right 70 depreciation
for themselves against unfair discrm,
nations and ovcrckarges, and that
was all they had In view In ,onacting
the law. The law does not stand
alone on the statute books. u 10 In
the line of legislation adopted on the
subject by twenty-scvcn oher, States,
and which promises to govern tho
subject by national enactment at no
Distant day. ="
"Ycu do not question, then, the
constitutionality Of the proposed In.
tcrstate commerce bill2" A..
.No, nor do l see how any man
can. There arc great legal authori-
ties on tho question from Chief jus
tice Marshall down, oil affirming Tho
right Of Congress to control the COM
mcroe between tho States. i
Senators George and Walthall and
representatives Van Eaton, Morgan
and Barry ALI concur IN NJ" Barks-
dsio'sidca as to The real purpcrto i tho
- 80. - = H--f.s~AfT