The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-04-06
BRYAN IN COURT.
Makes an Argument Before the Su-
preme Court Today

Washington, April 6-Tha supreme
court room and the corridors without
were crowded today with spectators
attracted by the appearance of VIM. J.
Bryan as counsel in a case Two lines
of people, many of them ladies, waited
outside of the door after the court room
had been filled, and when Mr.. Bryan
appeared at noon they applauded him.
stitutiOnality of a law of the state of
Nebraska enacted April II, 1893 en-
titled AN act to regulate railroads,
to classify freights, to fix reasonable
maximum rates to be charged for
transportation of freights," etc.
Several railroad companies were ar
rayed. against the state board of trans
portatiOn, the Union Pacific railroad
heading with James Carter as chief
counsel It was the contention of the
railroads that the purpose of the legis-
lature was not to fix the maximum
rates to prevent eXtOrtiOn but to COM
pei the roads to carry goods upon such
terms as the farmers of Nebraska could
afford to pay. The case was appealed
by the state board of transportation
from the United States circuit court
for the district of Nebraska, and Mr..
Bryan was associated with the attor-
ney general of the state.
Mr. Bryan, in beginning his argu-
ment. said that it was unfortunate that
there was no established rule by which
the court was to determine what were
reasonable rates. 1t must be pre-
sumed, however, that a legislature in
fixing what it held to be reasonable
rates acted in good faith.
Mr.. Carter held that there were three
kinds of rates, reasonable, not reason
able and unreasonable, leaving a space
in which motive could act, but Mr.
Bryan contended that there were but
two kinds of rates, reasonable and IN
reasonable and that court in passing
upon rates could not consider the mo-
tiVeS of the railroad; company which
erred must suffer the consequences. A
railroad is'' he said, ito a certain eX-
tent monopoly and the people cannot
depend upon the laws of competition
to protect them from the eXactiOnS of a
monopoly"
he argued, court must not base them
stocks and bonds but on its present value
Farmers and storekeepers whose property
fell in value could not charge higher
rates not having a monopoly, not being
able to water stocks and bonds.
When he came to discuss the rights of
corporations. Mr.. Bryan became some
what oratoricaI He said: If a few cor
be governed by the same rules as others
the people are the victims of those mon
.fThe rights of citizens to reasonable
rates is as sacred as those of railroads
to reasonable profits.
duals would raise up in their midst a
fictitious Individual, a corporate person
age and endow it with rights higher than
those of the creators"
Mr.. Bryan argued that courts should
not protect stock and bondhOlders in at
tempts to secure profits on fictitious capi-
talization The stock and bondholders
was presumed to invest with his eyes
open if he made a mistake it was no
duty of a court to protect him from the
consequence of that error The states
were legislating to prevent ficti-
tious capitalization, they encouraged it
and nullified the policy of the statutes.
If the courts held that corporations
must take their chances like individuals
in business. they would become interested
Trrf1i iraf
tend to promote the general welfare
He added: IF there be some who can
exempt themselves from general condi-
tions there is a temptation to them to
endeavor to perpetuate those conditions
In concluding he declared that the peo-
pie who gave value to a road by using it,
were as much entitled to consideration as
those who contributed to build it, else
there was no equality for citizens before
the courts.
Mr.. Bryan spoke until 2 o'clock, and
the court room with a rush.