Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1896-02-05

uecloed by the supreme court OF Rhode
Island, where II was held that tho fact
mat rairchd company for many years
nnu PAID the charge for hauling freight
irosi wharves to It's station does not
oind II to continue that practice PROV.
idenee Coal company vs.. providence and
western Railroad company. % American
ana English railroad cases q
Nnilipad corporatiors frequently yo,un-
tarily undertake the performance or cos,
OF services. the performance OF wh,cn
aIe not part OF their duties MS common
sarricrs under their charters This they
40 TO meet competition or for other rea.
sons, and they might be prevented hv
proceeding by proper parties, from cnra,,-
ing IN business which Is outside of th,Jr
corporate powers. But certainly tney
can not be compelled by the commission.
wnlch has no power TO enlarge their cor
p'oru'e duties. TO perform services which
", my hro not authorized by their charters
as 10 discrimination in patronage OF com.
oresses which would result from o,to,
reasons than the rates OF freight ma
''Hf"au facilities TO the various CONF
presses the commission has no concern
frVuuecw OF cotton and shlpners OF cot.
'oh have the right to select whit ram.
presses they will patronize, just Az rotnn
horehants nave the right TO selee, tho
iity ana the Wholesale houses with ,vbiob
tnoy viii deal And n congresses at orc
pace VIII compress for less rate than
others. or do their work better \, tho
same rate, or take better cere of eotton
Whlie in their ch"rge or are more ravor-
nbly situated for tho convenience, ., :,
shipper than others or for other rcnso,s
'han abuses In freight rates or railroad
iaeili'les. one compress is patronlzed OK
tensively aud another is neglected tnor,
y no legal right In the commission 90 in
ana what producer or shipper
,iuS 10 IN person he may do by afrent az,
iess the agent is forbidden by D,,y "a as
sumo such duties. And the coinp,iss,o,,
ms no power TO deal with ultra vIrrs ~.
VI Ialltoad corporations. There ia uo Iav,.
or public policy which has vet been mo.
Hluis1tau which would Justify a forra1
equa. lzatlon OF patronage by customers al
"r'I n,hu OF estnpIshmints. whether much
or niue money has been invested I'm tbc,,
Fcrsons who Invest none, have n rt,,t, e,
an equal chance with others similarly an.
ualed 10 attract PATRONAGE, In SO Tar no
,uHioau companies can affect the aubirrt
ny the rates and facilities OF .transnortn-
uon' nut beyond this they must RELY unon
Sheir natural advantages or upon pro-
tusns ho favorable competitive contu.
uons which win draw custonprs 10 tt,or,
ana not upon laws or rovarnror,a,
hgencits 10 protect invested capitaI bv
forced equal distribution or patronage 'rhs
voluntary selection of comprtsses for ,ne
shippers by railroad companies yvirno,,,
.ompen iau m, " Shipper Zee pr0,ier "a
unst inc companies as their agents In
taH
customers through their nrents. and 10 rn,
IN itself discrimination In the rites ar
jurisdiction. mas
INC next reason alleged In dtfendant,s
answer IN support OF the rules IA thnt mo-,
are necessary to prevent congcstion a,
coltoh IN the Interior by having II put In
h.i'tl space Tor transportation. But II Is
apparent that the commission ia ma,
charged with the duty OF preventing do.
nays IN transportation. The laws pessed
by the legislature deal with that stIhtoct
ny recurring railroad companies 10 FURNISH
tuihcleht cars 10 carry all freight ouoreJ
mem ana by subjeoting them to penalties
Ior iallures to so do. Furthcrmors, ir the
commission had power 10 require COM
pressing OF cotton TO prevent DELAYS In
transportation this would not Justify rom.
poillhg shippers and producers TO pny rail-
ROAD companies 10 assume this responsI.
bHity. The purpose could be Directly M
eompi'shed by requiring shippers TO have
ulelr cotton compressed before shipment
OF 10 eohsign their cotton TO some con-
Venlent compress, pay for compressinr IL
themselves and re-dellver It 10 tie rail-
rohds compressed.
] do not think any OF the reasons given
by counsel for implying the pow,r
claimed by the commission can be sus
t'uheu nor 90 ! conceive Of any right |
construction OF the language conferrlng |
powers on the commission which Womb |
maintain tho rules brought In question |
In this case ! therefore hold that the |
commission has no Jurisdiction over me |
subjects attempted TO he regulated byl
the rules brought In question IN this |
rtso and that the rules arc OF no Iegnl |
force or effect
The next question which Is presented !
for decision IL whether tho rules COM |
planned OF are unreasonable and unjust |
10 the plaintiff, Fer the purpose or PASS
Ing on this question II must be assumed |
that the commission had the power 10 |
make the rules In question II they are
mt unreasonable and unjust to the plain |
I'M
The statute requires the plaintiff TO |
prove by clear and satisfactory evidence |
hat the rates, regulations, orders, class,
fications or charges complained OF are
and unjust to II or them"
What In meant by the words unrenson-
iblc md unjust rs used In this connec-
ion2 ] am OF the opinion that they re-
iuire the plaintiff to show first, that
he rule complained o. considering Hll
Is effects operates iniurlously to the
plaintiff In n peculiar sense. II this Gun
rot he proved the plaintiff has no case
Il this can DO proved the plaintiff must
n the second place, show either that
hero Is no public interest requiring tho
'ulo or that II beneficial to the public II
3 80 onerous OH tho plaintiff as to deny
plaintiff Reasonable income on the values,
which tho plaintiffs property represents
Ifter paying operating EXPENSES, In other
vords that the commission. when acting
within the scope Of It's power, may law
ulIy imrose rules and regulations on
-aiIrdud companies which operate 20 some
xtent TO the pecuninry disadvantage Of
no road when there Is some public inter
at served by the rule, but that II can
lot make a valid rule which Injuries
allrohd and serves no public interest
Mis- Interpretation Of the rule should he
limited by the further requirement that
he rule should be made to affect directly
no object IN view. who're this can he
one, and that public interest which
nlght he served by n rule directly npplica-
le 10 the subject would not Justify any
nd every rule which might indirectly
end 10 aid in effecting tho public interest
esired TO be advanced. Il
Again. in considering together the pro- I
islon authorizing tho court to try the
uestion as to whether tho rule complained
{ is unreasonable and unjust TO plaintiff,
shich leaves out OF View the question ,