The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-07
THE RArxnokD CONVERSIONS

bxc1sroNs.
 The Railroad commissicsf of Alabama on last ssturdsy made the two most inn portant de:iverances h the history q that body. They were published in full in the Advertiser of sunday. One of these decisions in answer to the petition of the Merchants and FArrners' Association of Alabama, refused to order duplication of the Georgia local rates. The ether decision ordered con- siderable reduction in the local rates of all roads upon four, grain. hay and other foodstuffs aud farm products.
 The decision refusing to duplicate the Georgia local rates is by Associate Com missioner Sanders. the new member, and is q legal argument to a large extent He bases his deiiverance on decision or the united States Supreme Court to the effect that in considering what Is fair focal rate within State, railroads in- terstate business must be ignored; only the business within the State can be con- sidered in ascertaining whether the road is getting a fair profit in its operation. The Alabama statute provides that the roads must have "a fair and just return" Mir. Sanders cites full figures showing the valuation of the various roads. their returns from business within the State. their operating expenses, and the percent ase of profit. This percentage runs from 6 the highest, down to 1.so. From these
 figures. along with the premises of the Federal Court ruling and the State statute, he concludes that the Georgia rates would cause the Alabama roads to run at a loss, and that hence the Ala bama Commission hasn't the right to order such rates.
 The deiiverance ordering general re- duction on the classes of articles named Is by President Smith. It is not a legal argument, but simply an order It directs a reduction that Is said to aver age about 20 per cent, and it Is caicu- lated that these rates will entail diminution of about a quarter of a mill lion dollars a year in the aggregate reve- nues of all the roads of the State. To a superneial reader 1t will look as | if the two unanimous deliverances of the Commission are somewhat in conflict. II Commissioner sanders,s figures are cor rect and his legal argument sound, 1t does not look fair to the roads to reduce their rates in the least. Yet in the face of those figures, the Commission unanimous iy orders a reduction that is expected to cost the reads quarter of a million a year. Mir. Smith does not attempt to explain this apparent contradiction in the attitude of the body. Doubtless 1t can he done. but The Advertiser does not see how just now.
 It looks as if one of two things was true: either that the Commission does not believe the uneontradicted figures as to the roads profits, or else that it believes the roads will stand some injustice rather than make fight.
 It remains to be seen what will be the effect of these deliverances. The rail- roads may go into the courts and try to resist the order for a reduction, and use Mir. sanders's argument for justifica- tion. On the other hand, the roads may conclude that 1t Is expedient to stand the % per cent. reduction on the necessities of Mfe rather than enter a fight that might arouse bitterness and end in more radical legislation. We rather incline ! to the latter view. The roads will doubt
 less acquiesce, and trust to the lower rates to Increase the voluma of their
 business in the State.