The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-11-30
HARD ON THE RAILROADS AND BAD
FOR THE PUBLIC.

Tbe Times has more than once reierreo
% the case now pending in the supreme
Court OF the United States known as The
Nebraska maximum case in when the
oonst,trtionali,y Of an eot Of the Legs
,oture OF Nebraska is called IN question:
witch authorizes tho railroad comniis-
,,oro,s NJ that state to fix the rates that
tho railroads OF the state may charge ior
carving freights and passengers Inns
rage was argued in that court early last
snring Mr.. William ]. Bryan arguing IL
,r support OF the constitutlonality OF the
act but the court has never yet decided
it.
When the argument was made Ihe
Times called attention to the fact that
Mr.. BRYAN argued 10 the court that the
rates the roads should be allowed 10
charge were what would pay reasonable
interest upon what the roads could be re-
produced for. One OF the justices asked
him ~ no allowance should be made for
what has been spent in building the
road. whether wisely or unwisely, and he
answered that none should be, that they
should be allowed to earn n reasonable
interest upon what they could be repro
duced for only.
within the past few weeks the Supreme
Court of the State OF Michigan has pass
ed upon a statute OF Michigan, similar
to that Of Nebraska, and It has affirmed
1, L.
The case in which the decision is made
is STEVENSON VS.. Great Northern railroad,
~ n. w. r., 7l3 The Railroad Commits
sion had valued the road and Its property
in that case and had fixed q rate for II
to charge which would pay 2 IL per cent.
net income upon the cost Of reproducing
the terminals and per cent. net income
on the cost Of reproducing the rest Of the
road. and the Michigan Court held that,
under the circumstances. that was fair
" liberal income and the rates fixed by
the commission were not disturbed
The following propositions were an
nounced by the court. to-wit:
.rThe fixing Of rates IS legislative or
the court cannot place itself In the
shoes OF the commission, and try de novo
the question what are reasonable rates;
ard oil appeal the court can re-
view the acts Of the commission only so
far as TO determine whether the rates
fixed by II are unreasonable and coniisca-
tory, and 20 what extent In much the
same manner as an appellate court deter
mines whether or not the verdict OF a
fury IS excessive and 10 what extent.
I'm finding the amount OF capital on
which a corporation has right to earn
a reasonable income. what it would cost
to reproduce the property is the sole
measure. not the securities issued upon
IT,"
n the Supreme Court OF the United
States shall adopt these propositions as
the universal law for these United States,
Il Is obvious that there will be no moro
railroads built in this country. IL capt.
taiists are notified in advance that when
their enterprise is completed political
commission. established by a partisan leg
isiature that was elected to pillage the
railroads. is TO put its valuation upon the
work and allow II no more net income
for tho investment than that named in the
Michigan case. then capitalists will GER
tainly refuse 10 invest their money I'm
railroad enterprises and the further de-
veiopment OF our vast undeveloped terri
tory must come TO an end. And as for
the roads now in existence we must ex-
pect all Of their energies and great part
OF their money 10 be turned towards cor
rupting legislatures. railroad commits
sions and judges. and we shall probably
have far greater injury done the pub
tic from this quarter than could ever be-
fan II from any rates however high.
The whole theory Of this legislation and
judicial decision is utterly and radically
wrong. and the judge OF the Supreme
Court OF the United States was as wrong
m his suggestion 10 Mr.. Bryan as MIR
Bryan himself was. Neither the money
spent in erecting the road, nor what the
road could be reproduced for has any
thing TO do with determining the rates
that are 70 be charged by roads. The
sale OF transportation is in no sense diff
fsrent from the sale OF hats or coats.