Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-22
WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY %, 1883.
Comnnrca-Apaln.


Orr leader Of yesterday was supple
mented by n report in the same issue OF
the paper of decision rendered on
Monday by the interstate Commission.
The subject is an important One-a very
important onc-one whose interest grows
dav bv dav. The interstate commerce
law takes on new features as time passes,
and j. likely to become more ana more
popular in some localities, and
more and more unpopular in other
localities. As We intimated yes
tcrdav in lkcning the Interstate Com
merce Commission to the Supreme Court
of the United States. a great deal OF
iudgc-made law will be addcdto the
provisions of the interstate commerce
act by the commission itself. How can
kuch a result be avoided? We know
not There will always remain some
new feature to be developed by discus
sion and differentiated by the ingenuity
OF lawyers from the features OF the cases
which will have preceded it. Recall the
opinion Of Mr. Justice MATTHEWS in the
coupon-crushcr case. and you Will be
ready 10 conjecture the difficulties which
the acumen Of the interstate commits
sioners vii! enable them to overcome
when they shall be called upon to
decide new cases seemingly involving
points already passed upon. but which
the necessities of the occasion will com
pei the commission to contradistiDguish
from preceding decisions.
1t is clear that one at least of the decl-
sions rendered by the Interstate Com
mission on Monday was a just aud right
cous one. The decision We allude to
was that railroad cannot be compelled
70 give "tho same rate for two shipments
that it gives when there Is one only.
Isn't that clearly right ? But isn't there
implied IN it good deal more than is
said?
The fact is that the people are yet to
he educated upon the subject Of railroad
regulations and so-called railroad dis
ordinations, and the reasons for them.
lnasmuch. however, as it would seem to
be impossible that there should ever be
competition everywhere, this education
must come to the people before many
more years shall have passed over their
heads.
The following from the decision under
consideration is a very significant state
ment. 1t appeared IN our columns yes
terdav with the word mot incorrectly
forced into it:
"Elaborate proofs were taken and the
commission finds number OF Instances
of excessive charges 10 be made out. In
respect to such charges the parties pay
ing them were not represented III the
case before the commission, but It was
shown that so far as the rates We're found
10 he erroneous they had been corrected,
and if overcharged had been repaid.
The party III each case was entitled to
have repayment on demand.
That ought to be satisfactory to sll
shippers.
But we shall quote next sentence
which Will open the eyes of some people
1t is as follows;
The commission also holds that the
Justice of local rates cannot be deter
mined by comparison of them with the
rates charged on long through-lines upon
which frcights are carried for long dis
tancss in great volume and at relatively
very much less expense than like freights
can be carried when moved in less guam
titles and for comparatively short dis
tances.
That language is, so to speak, COM
ment upon that feature of the inter-
State commerce act which touches longer
and shorter hauls. 1t would be difficult
to attach too much importance to it. IT
means a great deal.
The Virginia Legislature will find in
all these decisions food for reflection
when that body shall engage in perfect
ing the intia-State commerce bill which
has already been passed by one branch.