The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-04-22
BRYAN ON MONOPOLY
BEFORE THB SUPREME COURT,
be TAKES VERY STRONG AND ADVANCED POSITION IN
A VERY IMPORTANT CASE

WA5HiSGTOS, ID. g., April O.
William J. Beyan, of Nebrssks, the
recent and prospective candidate
| for the presidency on the anti mo
uopoly platform, m msde his first ap-
pearance before the Uaited States
supreme court TO day as one OF the
'sunsel for his State IN suit agsins,
| he railroads.
The ann ,uncement that Mr.. Bryan
Vas to address the court attracted
Que OF the largest crowds that have
ever taxed the limited seating ca
pAcl,y OF the court room. At least
tvo.ihirds were women. After the
court room had been filled two long
tnes Of people waited patiently
outside. aud when Mr.. Bcyan ap.
pesred appla him heartily.
Mr. Bryan wore his usual costume
"a black suit with cut& way coat
aud standing collar wide open in
front and encircled by black string
tie
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The case in which Mr.. Bryan Is in
terested arose out of an act passed
by the Nebraska legislature in 1893
61ng rate for freight charges by
railroads.
The railroads sought by ipjunc-
| tons aud other methods to pr vent
the 5 ate board of TRANSPORTATION
from carrying out the law on the
ground that the State has no right
10 enact such legisla,i n; that tho
rate established were not suffi cient
60 maintain the road, and in the case
| of the Uuion Pacific, that, as the
| road was creation of Congress, the
State could not assume supervision
over 1t.
Justice Brewer, who heard the
case, d-nied all the points raised in
the II Inction except that which
took tue ground that the State law
was unconstitutional because it es
tablsh, d rate which was not suff
Gent to operate the roads and would
| dlspossess the owners of their prop
erty without due process OF law. But
Judge Brewer left the case open for
the submission Of further evidence
on the iestion IS to the establis shed
rate on the revenues of the roads
involved.
Mr. Bryan to day opened his argu-
ment in a calm, slow and deliberate
way, speaking clearly and looking
directly at the dignified justices. AS
he proceed, he spoke more rapid
ly and at times with some vehe
meuce.
Mr. Bryan spoke for forty. five min
utes. He had no notes, and stop
ped only to read references from
law books. His address as taken
verbatim for the World follows:
TExT OF MR.. BRYA' 'sARGUMENT.
II fee | somewhat embarrassed in
the discussion of this case by the
fact that IT msy be necessary to es-
tablish q rule for the determination
basis upon which to calculate an
income, as there is no light on that
subj let to be gathered from the de-
eisions in this or any other court of
last resort to which we have access.
''lt must be assumed that legisla-
lures, when they attempt to fix q
rate which is at the same time ress
enable to the patron and reasonable
to the railroad, make the attempt in
good f.ith. We must admit that
the Legislature desires to do justice
TO the roads as we'll as the patrons.
aud we mus 1t assume that the lower
courts, to which the conn pl sip&nts
must go before they reach this court,
desire to do justice between the cou-
tending parties. Therefore, it is un-
fortunate that there Is no establish
ed rule for the guidance Of the in
ferior Judges when they come to
act upon the case.
Tue interest of this case grows
out of the fact that the establish
ment of a principle means q great
deal Of bo'her to patrons and the
road. Before addressing myself to
that particular question l want to
call the attention Of the court to q
point made in the brief of counsel
for appellees to the IF set that there
lss z,De bet ween reasonable rates
and Ut reasonable rates.
Il believe Mr.. Carter, in his brief
tries to hxa space between reasona-
ole aud unreasonable rates. through b
which motive can ont rate. 10 OH. r
words, he divides rates into reasona-
ole, not reasonable aud uureasona
Ole. We insist that there is no such
division. in that rates are either
reasonable or unreasonable; that
the court cannot 60 into ths
motive OF the railroad company
mat there is no latitude allowed
tnrough which motive can operate
"A railroad is permitted tc
enarge reasonable rates-a railroad
Is not permitted to charge
unreasonable rates and it mat
ters not whether the charge j,
made intentionally or uniate n,ion
ally, the court will not consider the
motive; the court will 'nsidsr tn,
Tact. TIA railroad company erred
onintentionaliy it must at the sam,
time be subj .cted to restraint.
COMPLETION INSUFFICIENT.
Another point. Counsel for ap
pellees insist that competition vii
give to the public sufh cient aid ant
relief from extortionate rates. 4
considerable portion Of the brie
OF one of the counsel is devoted t
showing that competition, If left fre
10 act, will protect the patrons O
the road from extortion or unreason
able rates 1t would be sufR .ien
answer to this to say that the cour
has held in every case which ha
come before it that . patron is no
compelled to rely for protectio
upon competition.
Every decision Of this court hs
been to the tff.ct that the leglsls
tuie has the right TO fix reasonabl
rates either directly through act {
the legislature or indirectly throue
commission. That must be sufI
cieut answer; but l want to ask tt
court to consider the reaso
upon which that rule 10 founded.