The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-04-08
Mr.. BRYAN ARGUED A CASE
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SU-
PREME COURT-DREw A>LARGE
CROWD.
He Paid A VISIT 70 The PRESIDENT
Exchanged PIeasantries With Mai.
McKinIey-He Made n Face
tious Remark About the
Municipal Elections.

Washington, April 6.-The supreme
court room and corridors without were
crowded today by spectators attracted by
the appearance of William 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
filed and when Mr.. Bryan appeared at
noon they applauded him. The case at
issue involved the constitutionality of a
law of the state Of Nebraska, enacted
April 2, 1883, entitled IAN act to regulate
railways, to classify freights, to fix rea-
sonable maximum rates to be charged for
the transportation Of freights, ETC." Sew
eral railroad companies were arrayed
against the state board of transportation,
the Union Pacific ut their head, with
James w. Carter as chief counsel. 1t
was the contention of the railways that
the purpose of the legislature was not to
fix the maximum rates to prevent eXtOr-
ton, but to compel 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 trans
portation from the United States circuit
court from the district of Nebraska, and
Mr.. Bryan was associated with the attor-
ney general of the state as counsel
Mr.. Bryan, in beginning the argument,
said it was unfortunate that ther was
no established rule by which the court
was to determine what were reasonable
rates. 1t must be presumed, however,
that a legislature, in fixing what / held
to be reasonable rates, acted in good
faith.
Mr.. Carter held that there were three
different kinds of rates-reasOnabl not
reasonable. and nreasonable-leavhg a
space in which motive could act, but Mr.
Bryan contended that there were two
kinds of rates-reasOnabl and unrtason-
able-and that court, in passing upon |
rates. could not consider the motives of |
a railway. A company that erred must |
suffer the consequences.
"A railway is" he said, ito a certain !
extent monopoly, and the peoph can |
not depend upon the laws of competition |
to protect them from the exactions of a |
In deciding what were reasonable rates |
he argued a court must not base them on
the original cost of a road or on its tOcks
or bonds, but on its present value. Farm
Frs and storekeepers, whose property sell
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 rhetorical. He said:
IF a few corporations can SECURE a
and not be governed g the
same rules as others, the people are the
victims of those monopolies.
'The rights of citizens to unable
'ates are as sacred as those ads
10 reasonable profits No set
lals should raise up in their
.itious individual, corpora
low it with rights higher
he creator"
Mr.. Bryan argued tho
should not protect stocks an, uoDus in
attempts to procure value on fictitious
The stakeholder or bond
lolder is supposed to have his eyes open.
t he made mistake it was not the duty
II the court to protect him from that er-
or. The states legislated against ficti-
ious capital, but if the courts upheld fic-
itious capitalization they encouraged it |
o defy the states. If the courts held |
hat corporations must take their places
is individuals as in business, they would
become interested and would work for
he things that would tend to promote the
general welfare.
He continued:
IF there are some who can exempt |
themselves from the general conditions
here is temptation to them to endeavor
o perpetuate these conditions"
In conclusion he declared that PEOPLE
who gave value to road by using it were
81 IL