The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1896-09-15
JUDICIAL

When the people first claimed the
right to be protected against excessive
railroad charges by maximum rates to
be established by law, or under railroad
commissions created by statute, the
corporations bitterly contested this
public right, but it was so plain
that every decision of the U. s. Su-
preme Court has sustained it. The
corporations, who have craftlly sue
ceeded in getting numbers Of their
former upon the Federal courts,
have succeeded 80 far as to get a de
cision-reversing a former one-that
the courts could supervise the rates
established by the Legislature if found
to be unreasonably low. 1t is difficult
to comprehend the logic Of this decision,
for If the Legislature has the power To
fix rates, it and not the courts, have
the discretion to say what are just and
proper rates.
Still the courts have claimed the
power (whether rightfully or not) to
supervise the maximum rates fixed by
law. But never till the recent iDjunc
tions issued by Judges SImon5on and
Speer against the Seaboard Air Line to
prohibit that corporation from volun
tarily reducing its charges has it ell
tered the bead of any man, be he Law
yer OF layman, that the courts had al
thority to do more than pass upon a
maximum rate when imposed upon a
common carrier against It's will.
If, as now claimed, the judges can,
without authority OF a statute, intervene
and declare that if a common carrier is
liberal t tie public to its own detri
ment and has fixed its rates too low, the
courts can also intervene without statu
tory authority and say they are too
high. If the courts possess this new
power, then it is usurpation for the
Legislature to attempt to fix rates and
both railroad commissions and rail
way boards Of directors are useless.
Henceforth railway charges will be
fixed by the judgment of the courts
and the legislature will be p~owerless to
protect the people by any attempt to
do 80.
This, however, in plain English, is a
bold usurpation on the part of the Fed
eral courts. The legislature has the
power, u~ndeniably, to protect the
public by establishing rates beyond
which common carriers shall not
charge. Within that limit, each cor
pCration has the legal power and right
to fix its charges as low as it sees fi5.
For a judge to intervene in favor of
another corporation, a competitor who
fears it shall be forced to likewise make
reduction in it's rates, is an usurpation
of power utterly without right and
without precedent. 1t is practical
c~onfiscation, laid upon every shipper
and passenger, who is thus compelled
to pay o than the corporation
offered to receive.
In the several States, the people have
felt compelled to restrain the excessive
power of the courts by making the
judges elective for a term Of years. In
the Federal Constitution alone the old
provision making the judges appointive
and for life has so far remained un-
changed, but it cannot be so much
longer. The Federal Judges now are in
effect responsible to no one and have
been usurping all power into their own
hands. The money power has seer it's
opportunity and has packed the U. 8.
Courts with corporation COUNSEL
whose appointments it has secured.
Hence the remarkable Income Tax De-
cision" which by judicial fiat repealed
J an act of Congress, which had passed