Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-07-13

ton, aud such as their own interests
might dictate
Civilized and enlightened governments
provide for highways 10 meet the necessi-
ties of travel and transportation, for
the use and benefit of the public. Rail
ways ARE an improved and more costly
klud OF public roads, the construction OF
which Is authorized by government TO
promote the public welfare. Without
the authority of government, which
grants their charters, VI would not be
practicable to build them. The govern
mcnt extends to them It's right Of eminent
domain, so as to enable Them to secure
the condemnation Of The lands of private
citizens for their rights of way aud
lppot grounds. Such COMBINATIONS,
under the constitutions and laws, can
only he made for public use, and upon
inst COMPENSATION for thc property SO
private property like manufacturing
establishment. or store. or farm, the
land OF other persons necessary for their
occupation could not be condemned for
their use. aud therefore they could not
he built II is because of the interest
the public has In thu, railroads. aud he-
cause they cannot be built or exist with
ont the use Of the government right OF
eminent domain that tho courts OF the
country hold that their rates and charges
may be 50 controlled by law as To pm
,prt the people against excessive charges
and unjust Determinations
In addition To the foregoing reasons Tor
tile control of he railroad corporations
by public authority there are others
not less decisive of that Necessity.
When rates and charges are not hNed
by commission they are made by the
freight agents and trallic- manngers of
the roads. These represent die Interests
of the railroad companies, Aud expert
cncp has shown that their efforts are
guided by the policy Of securing the
largest amount Of business aud the larg-
est amount of revenue Nttninahlc. To
these ends. unjust determinations in
charges and excessive rates are very
common Aud In this way much inius-
tice is done. 1t may BE- said that the
courts are open Ia those against whom
unjust Determinations and excessive
charges are made; and that either by the
statute or by the common law they have
n remedy for the correction of such
wrongs. Technically. this may he true
but practically II Is In most cases mn
true. The injury 10 the shippers In each
ease of discrimination or ovcrcharge Is
such injuries nny amount TO great
public burden and wrong. III most cas-
rs " the injured citizen should sue for
damages in til, courts. the loss Of time
IN attending TO the litigation aud his
attorneys fees, II successful In his suit.
would exceed the damages he might re-
cover In most eases the railroad cor
pnrniions pay fhrr lawyers annual sala-
rirs. so that spccial casts Of litigation
do not Increase their counsefs fees.
And If from any cause they become in
vOlypd In much litigation. they have but
To make slight increase in their rates
and charges in order TO make the public
Fl., nf thtsfr lfipnffnu
In answer to the complaints of the
people. the two houses of the British
parliament. IN ISL, appointed Il joint
select committee. with Earl Derby NJ
the head of 1t. and with Lord Salisbury
and other distinguished members on II.
charged with the investigation of abuses
In railway management. After nm cN-
haustiye Investigation, in which much
testimony was taken, among Othor things
the committee reported that the private
citizen had No equal chance In litigation
with the railroad corporations nnl that
ii was the duty of the government Ia
make provision for contesting the jnstlcc
Of such rates as might he complained Of
The legislature Of Texas made just such
u provision In the much discussed 9th
section Of the railroad commission law OF
1891, which, il II shall he sustained by
the courts, will be worth more to the pa6-
Pile of the state than any other pruvis-
A'l VI AAlslN INV ~ lA'N NUS Ahl NtNAliNH
the justice Of rites established by the
commission, by suits brought by the
aggrieved party aguinst the commission.
IN the courts at the capital city OF The
state. where the commission holds It's
sessions. Such suits between the rail-
road company and the commission would
be between parties able to fully show
the law and the facts in the case. aud
thus 10 secure just decision. BY this
means q single suit between parties able
To fully present the case would be the
means of preventing great number Of
suits between private citizens (fur the
most part unable To stand such ltigation)
and the railroads The state would thus
protect the citizen against injustice aud
save him FROM much expense.
As TO the claim that competition Will
regulate freight rates and keep them In
reasonable bounds, no one who is at
all Informed az to railronh management
will pretend that competition between
railroads gives security TO the people
against uliust Determinations and OK.
cessye charges As rule they combine
to maintain rates. II is an old saying.
and rs true ns II is old. among writer's
on this subject thar "where combination
Is possible competition does not exist
Sometimes we hear Of rate wars between
roads, but this is not, and is not intend