The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-04-22

rely upon competition to protect
the m from the exactions of the mo-
nopoly. The very existence Of .
road between the points within Ger
tain Limits prohibits another road
from building. because until the
rates charged by the existing roads
are sufii cient to pay operating ex-
penses ard reasonable income
upon the total value of the roads q
new road is almost absolutely pro.
hibited, because il tho new road Is
built the traffic must be taxed to
pay operating expenses and a rea-
sonsble income upon two invest
ments. each equal to the cost Of the
road
'Mr. Woolworth, in his brief
even goes beyond that and, in die
cussiog the value Of the good will
r. fers to the case Of the New York
Central RAILROAD, in which he said a
new road attempted to parallel the
line, but because people had become
accustomed 10 use the old road this
new road was not able to com pete,
aud finally became bankrupt and was
bought in by its rival.
JUSTICE BREWER QUOTED.
81 ask the court to consider the
language used by Nj. Justice
Brewer in the case which is reported
in the forty seventh Federal Rspor-
ter, pogo Is. In that case the
U oion Pacific railroad and the R ,ck
Island railro'd and the Chicago
Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad had
entered into contract by which the
U Uoion Pacific road agreed to lot the
other roads use the bridge across the
Missouri river at Omaha, and after
this contract had been in operation
q while the Union Pacific railroad
attempted to terminate the CONTRACT
and the language used by Mr.. JUS
tice Brewer in that case, think, sets
forth an important economic prin.
ciple.
1.-The language used in that case
shows very plainly how partial, how
insufficient is the remedy given by
competition, and l ask the special
attention of the court to that case.
I will not read it. Mr. Justice
Brewer pointed out that if the con.
tract was null. and these roads had to
build q new bridge, then the ira fie
across the river must necessarily pay
an income upon an additional in.
ves'ment of some 2,O0O. 600 or So,
900 900
Aud in the case of the roads be.
tween Pueblo and Denver, Colo,
there being three roads there, in the
opinion rendered, he asserts that j,
is reasonable to believe that one
road with a double track could have
done the work Of the three roads
and that tho one road could have
been built for not more than hall
the expense Of the building of the
three roads, and that, there fore, il
that one road, with its double track
had been doing all the work, il
could have done that work at q les.
rate than must necessarily bs charg
ed by the three roads to do tha
work.
UNION PACIFIC IN POINT.
"There is the Union Pacific rail
road. 1t has built more than 4Ot
miles through Nebraska. The tee
timony shows that the building o.
that road can ba duplicated fol
something tike $50 600 per mile, ant
If any person here has seen that val.
ley, which is perhaps tho most ia
vorable for railroad construction il
the world, for the Same length,
think be will believe that the testi
mony in regard to the cost of dupli
eating for $40. 900 per mile. Aul
yet that road is burdened will
stocks and bonds to the amount O.
more than 500 coo q mile.
"Now, if the road should attemp
to charge rates sufficient to pay al
income on that enormous capitalize =
ton tits probable that q new roae
would be built. But that would b.
an expensive means of protectin,
those people, because if two road
we're there instead of one it woul,
re quire q larger fr. light rate to pa.
interest on two investments than j
would to pay interest on the one in
vestment of this ono railroad is reg
ulated and the rates made reasona
BILE.
II want to call the attention of tn
| court to this to chow that the rule o
the courts which gives protection t
the patrons of q railroad is 1ul
found. d on justice. Now We ma
start with q conc ded rule of law.
1T has been affirmed and real
frmed by this court that the severa
states have the right to fix reason
able rates either through an act O
the legislature directly or indirectl
through . railroad commission
reasonable passenger and freigh
rates upon rsffic wholly withia ,hei
border. There is another propos
ton that may be accepted as true
that as . general rule the power G
courts to suspend the enforcement
of the schedule of rates fixed by sac
legislature or railroad comm,ssio
can only be invoked when such rate
yield an income so small as to leav
absolutely nothing above operatin
expense. That is the rule which
think has been established by the d.
cision Of this court" ,
(Mr. Bryan here quoted decisio,
bearing on this point)
Il ACQUISITION BY THE COURT.
: Tho Court-Would capitalists ev'
consent to build . railroad under Z
| act of the legislature which PERM
I ted them only to earn operating 9
8 pensesf
{ Mr.. Bryan: II do not know, yo1
D honor, but I will speak Of that in
moment. / want to address mYse
q to that point . little further on.
want to speak frat Of this constit
q tional Limitation.
f IL desire to be heard for N
b ment in regard to the basis up
l. which rates or income should be G,
e culated, in case the court shou
d hold that either because Of the co
stitutional provision in Nebraska