Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1896-09-02
INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
Southern and Seaboard Left Where They
Wore Before the Suit Was Brought.

Southern and Seaboard Left Where They
Wore Before the Suit Was Brought.
Judge Simonton, on Monday, filed
his decision in the suit brought by the
Port Royal and Augusta railroad
against the Southern States Freight
association, from carrying into effect its
proposed reduction of 80 per cent. in
freight rates. The decision sets aside
the temporary restraining order and
dismisses the bill. 1t is likely that the
rate cutting will be resumed.
The decision is quite lengthy, and
to publish it in full is impracticable at
this time. The following extracts
from it, however, will give very good
idea as to its scope.
"Ownership in railroads differs
from that in every other species OF
property. A railroad is, as it were,
public property, and as its first duty
is to the public the owners can refuse
service to none and the charges must
be always uniform. In no case can
they 60 beyond what is just and rea-
sonable, and in its last resort the state
or federal courts determine what
charges are reasonable"
In regard to the question of juris-
diction, the court says:
"As to the necessary parties before
this court in this case the return of the
Georgia, Carolina and Northern Rail
road company develops the fact that
the Seaboard Air Line is only the des-
ignation of route or line operated
and controlled by two corporations,
the Raleigh and CASTOR railroad COM
pany and the Seaboard and Roanoke
railroad company-one a corporation
of the state of North Carolina and the
other of the state of Virginia; that
the Georgia, Carolina and Northern
has leased all of the lines and the
property of these two corporations for
long term of years. The controlling
question, therefore, is, Are these two
corporations necessary parties to this
bill? Are their interests inseparable
from those of the Georgia, Carolina
and Northern railroad company? The
Georgia, Carolina and Northern is un-
der lease to these two corporations,
which control it without consulting it..
1t will be observed, also, that the
ground upon which alone relief can be
given under this bill is the motive
purpose of this war of rates.
"It goes without saying that this
court cannot fix rates, cannot inter-
fere in any way in a reduction of rates
brought about in legitimate competi-
ton. Only when a reduction is made
regardless of the roads own interests
with view to destroy and defeat an
adversary and crush out competition,
the court can interfere. When the
great powers granted it by the public
for public good are diverted from these
purposes and used to crafty personal
luminosity against rivals to the wrong
and injury of the public, the court may
interfere. The court should, therefore,
have before it the corporation engaged
in waging this war of rates. 1t is not
enough to have before it the lessor OF
q road which processes to have no
knowledge of such motives and purpo-
ses. If this case were to proceed and
it should be held that injunction should
issue, the Georgia, Carolina and North
ern company would be restrained from
carrying goods at rates fixed by the
Seaboard and Roanoke and Raleigh
and CASTOR company, its lessees.
The order of injunction would set
aside and abrogate this part of the
contract, and, to this extent, would
deprive the lessees of the property on
lease and the order of injunction
would be based on unlawful action on
the purpose of these lessees them
selves-not on that of their lessor.
Could the court abrogate this lease,
annul its terms, deprive those two cor
porations of their property in it on
grounds like those without having the
lessees as parties in the case? Could
the court investigate the conduct of
these two lessee corporations, convict
them of these grave charges and de-
prive them of their property in their
absence? Can DEGREES be made against
the Georgia, Carolina and Northern
railroad company without affecting