The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-04-28

are accorded all rights that could pos
sibly be expected by any corporation
or citizen who intends to obey a just |
law. Before any rate can be estab-
lished under the act, the commission |
is required to give the railway COM
pany to be affected thereby ten days
notice of the time and place when,
and where the rates are to be fixed.
1t provides that the railroad company
shall be entitled to be heard at such
time and place to the end that justice
may be done, and be given process to
enfo rec the attendance of witnesses.
In other words, before the commission
shall make any rates or pass rules
affecting companies, they shall have
full and complete hearing. After
the rates have been established, if
any company be displeased with them,
it has the right to file a petition in the
district court of Travis county against
the commission setting forth the par
ticular cause or causes of objection to
such rate, rule or classification. When
such suit is brought it is made the
duty of the commission to appear and
answer in court the charge or COM
plant of the railway company. The
company is given the fright of-way"
in that court clear through without
obstruction to the supreme court of
the state. No other case can stand in
the way of it, for it has precedence of
all others in the district and supreme
court. The case can be speedily
brought to trial in the district court
at Austin, in session most all the year,
and may be appealed therefrom to the
supreme court of the state at any time
during it's niue months session. In
other words, the railway company
complaining of the commission rate
can get trial and final decision in
the courts without delay or the least
obstruction. The trouble with the
companies is, that if they complain of
rates under the present law, they will
have to meet q well posted commission
capable of entering the contest and in
teligently meeting the issues. OPP
ponents of the law complain that
while this litigation is going on the
rates prescribed by the commission
are binding on the railways and the
people. This is so. Why should they
not be? The railways had a hearing
before the commission rates were es-
tablished. If they object to them they
can go into court and, on proof that
they are unreasonable, have them set
aside without delay. There is a
strong inducement, therefore, for the
company to prepare for and press a
trial OF the issue to final determine
ton. If the rates were suspended
during the litigation and the compa-
MES allowed to fix them, there would
be no inducement to bring the case to
final trial. The power to collect
tolls from the commerce of this country
would make it profitable to them to
keep their case in court forever. To
illustrate: They complain that the
commission reduced the rate on cotton
on an average of 46 cents per bale,
aggregating a saving to the people of
at least $1,000 last season. Now
then, suppose when this rate was fixed
its effect could have been suspended
during trial in the courts D.? Every
man knows the result. The interest
on that million dollars would keep the
case in court, paying fees and costs for
years to come, and the railways would
continue to haul cotton at the same
old rate, while the people stand out in
the cold and whistle to keep courage
during the protracted litigation. If
the rate had been unjust to them
they could have filed suit and estab-
lished that fact in the courts of the
country within twenty or thirty days
under the law as it now stands; and
thus, before the cotton season closed,
have saved themselves the loss of
which they now complain. They did
not go into court. Why? Because
they knew delay in an unjust cause
was not practicable under the law.
The commission is fully able to meet
them and to make proof that although
the rate on cotton has been greatly re-
duced, yet il is not too low. This is
presented as an illustration that will
apply to every other commodity or
rate of which the opponents ofthe COM
mission complain. Under the law the
commission rate is binding on the
railways and the shippers until it is
changed by authority of the commits
sion or by decree of the court in
suit brought against the commission
for the express purpose of setting it
aside. When the rate has been es-
tablshed, all the citizen has to do is
to deliver his freight to the agent of
the railway company and tender the
amount of money due for its shipment
according to the commission classified
ton and schedule. If the agent refus-
es to transport it or charges a greater
rate than the one prescribed, the
company is responsible to the shipper
for the actual damages sustained, and
in addition thereto for a penalty
of not less than SIPS nor more than
$500 in each case. to be
recovered in the county court. of the
county into or through which the
railway runs. The citizen has moth
ing to do with fixing the rate; nor
can the company contest with him it's
validity or its reasonableness. When
he is charged more than the commits
sion rate, he can sue the company for
the penalty, and has only to prove
the loss and over-charge. Unless the
company shows that it was uninten-
tional or by inadvertence the damages
sustained and penalty imposed must
be paid. The opponents OF the pres
ent law object to this and say he
railway ought to have the right to
contest the reasona bleness of the rate !
in proceedings brought to recover the