The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-03-24

IN. Court would have taken into con-
all Of these questions and
first decided whether the expenses OF ,
the Company were reasonable before
deciding the question Of whether . GER
tain rate was reasonable or unreason-
able. The following sentence in the
decision of the Court is significant:
Under the evidence, there 10 no
ground for saying that the operating
expenses Of any OF the companies were
greater than necessary"
II would seem from this that tie
Court was ready to take into consider
alton all OF the questions referred to
above, but that there was no evidence
on these points, or at least II there WAS
any evidence that it was not sufficient.
The Court in summing up the ques-
to the railroads. says: I'VE hold, how
ever that the basis OF all calculations |
Is to Ie reasonabieness OF rates to be |
charged by corporations maintaining
fsisIhliNc
must be the fair value Of the property
being used By it for the convenience
of the public. what
the company is entitled TO ask is q
fair return upon the value Of that
which it employs for the public con-
venience. On the other hand, what the
| public is entitled to demand is that no
more b exacted from it for the use Of
public highway than the service rem.
dered by it are reasonably worth"
It seems from this that the position
Of the Court, abstractly, is eminently
fair and just, and il we read the decis-
ion Alright the Court would have sus-
tanned q reduction Of say 20 per cent.
when it was shown that the profits of
the road were as much as twenty -four
per cent. or on the other hand, that
the court would have sustained the re-
ductiOn Of twenty-nine and a half per
cent, and possibly even larger reduce
ton, il it had been shown by the State
that the operating expenses of the
road were unreasOnably high, and in
cluded items and charges (such as fifty
thousand dollar salaries, which are ex-
cessive; such as contributions to cam
paign funds; such as lobbying expen-
SEES to corrupt legislatures; such as
fixed charges to pay dividends and wa
tered stock, etc. that could not justly
be counted among reasonable expen-
se3,
Surely all of these questions will be
looked into and presented to the Court
if the railroads in North Carolina
should attempt to resist the fair and
righteous action of the Railroad Com.
mission in reducing passenger rates to
: 2la and 2 cents per mile in this State
But let us return a moment to the
=, decision in question. The concluding
: paragraph is significant. We quote
But it may be added that the condi.
I ton of business so far as railroad cor
I poratiOns are concerned, have prob
ably changed for the better since the
decree below; and that the rates pre-.
scribed by the statute of 1898 may now
afford all the compensation to which
the railroad companies in Nebrasks
). are entitled as between them and the
public" The Court then proceeded to
show how the people of Nebraska car
at once have the rates that they hav,
e fixed put into effect if it can be shown
e that those rates are now reasonable
and the Court says that if such is TIT
case that the State can apply to tn,
e Circuit Court to have the injunction
: dissolved and that sit will be its duty
to discharge the injunction before
granted and to make whatever orde
is necessary to remove any obstruction
: placed by the DEGREES in these cases il
: the way of the enforcement of the stat
ute.'
: Thus it will be seen that the peopl
d of Nebraska are not without a remedy
r even before the Federal Courts, an
j. the same is true of every State in tn
n Union. Under this decision of tn
d Court it is the duty Of every State t.
n see that no railroad charges rates tina
e are unreasonably high, and the Cour
is makes it clear that it will sustain tn
J. States in any rate that the State ma
5. fix if the State can show that it per
s mits the railroads to earn a REASONABLE
o profit after deducting such expense
e. as are reasonable and can properly
e charged as legitimate expenses.
Is OF course all of these questions shoul
if be settled by the State Courts, an
Is should never 60 to the Federal Courts
e but even under this decision the Su
Ut preme Court of the United State
e would sustain North Carolina il it wer
10 to reduce passenger rates even belo,
It the rate fixed by the Railroad Commits