The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-09-20
THE EATONTON DECISION.
Brief Resume of the Decision De-
IiVered by Judge Hart.

hVered by Judge Hart.
Eatonton, Ca, Sept. 19.-Judge Harris
decision in the case of the state of Geor-
gia vs.. the Central of Georgia Railway for
I injunction and appointment of "A receiver
for the Middle Georgia and Atlantic Rail-
way. delivered in the Superior Court here
Yesterday, was quite lengthy and exhaust
I've. After reciting the history of the
Middle Georgia and Atlantic Railroad,
from its construction to its purchase of the
EatOntOn branch in June, 1896 and its sub
sequent sale of its own original line from
Eatonton to Covington, together with the
Eatonton branch from Eatonton to Mil
! ledgeVille, TO the Central in December,
1896 and after laying sufficient stress on
the many affidaVits offered by the Central
that Eatonton was now enjoying better
service and cheaper freight and passenger
rates than ever, he came to the point of
law involved, viz: Had the constitution
of the state been violated by the Central
when it bought the Middle Georgia?
The claim of the petitioners was that
article d. section ?, paragraph 4 of the con-
stitution had been violated. This para
graph reads: THE general assembly of
this state shall have no power to author
ize any corporation to buy shares or stock
in any other corporation in this state or
elsewhere, or to make any contract, or
agreement whatever. with any such corpo-
ration, which may have the effect, or be
intended to have the effect, to defeat or
lessen competition in their respective bus
inesses, or encourage monopoly; and all
such contracts and agreements shall be
illegal and void
Judge Harris decision was based mainly
on the word competition" in the above
paragraph. He said:
What is competition? When does 1t ex-
list? How may it be shown? To what ex-
tent must il exist when a contract which
lessons and repeats ii is illegal and void?
Upon the correct answer of these aues-
tons rests the correct decision of this
case In general way competitor may
be defined as an effort between two or
more persons natural or artificial to gain
what the other is endeavoring to gain at
the same time; a state of rivalship. 1t
may be said to exist when persons are in
position to act and do act. Competition
is action. 1t may be shown to exist as
any other substantive fact may be proven.
IT may be manifested by external circum-
stances capable of proof and it may he
implied where location, circumstances and
conditions, show that competition is the
reasonable normal, natural result"
Judge Hart then took up the question
whether that part of the constitution
quoted above was self-assertive and self
executive, and by section 1903 of the code,
IN Inc same article, which says, The gem
era1N assembly shall enforce the provisions
of this article by approximate legislation"
decI1ed that it was not self-assertive and
self-executve. This part of the decision
showed deep study and research. Ii was
filled with quotations from eminent au-
thorities on constitutional law upholdlng
him.
He then proceeded to show that there had
been no real competition along the Middle
Georgia road since Its construction.
His decision ends with these words.
THE court, therefore, believes that this
provision of the constitution Qhe one
quoted above) should be given a liberal,
reasonable construction and under such
construction and under the evidence
submitted in this case, the court
does not believe that the pur-
chase by the Central of the Middle Geor-
gia and Atlantic Railroad was in violation
of article 4, section @ paragraph 4, of the
constitution, and it is accordingly ordered
that the petition for injunction and re-
ceiver be and the same is hereby refused"
The majority of the people of Eatonton
are highly pleased with Judge Harris de-
cision in this case.