The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-12-02

VIII get the 19 per cent IN
freight on your logs, and there Is no
discrimination. for the same oner Is
open to you as to others. !.
If the plaintiff, hk others. was
shipping logs to Wilmington with the
voluntary intention of shipping by the
defendants road. say to New York.
then certainly there would be no dis
elimination. But the plaintiff does not
wish to ship to New York over the
defendants line, and the defendant pro-
poses ito put the screws to the plain
tiff" and make il do so whether it
wishes 20 do SO or not, and II the
plaintiff does not do so, the defendant
"a the plaintiff cannot be treated
as well as others as to the rate for
hauling its logs, but must pay nearly
one fifth 09 per cent? higher rartes on
it's logs. That is the very point at is
sue. Hauling it's logs to Wilminet~~ &c
the only service the plaintiff seeks at
the defendants hands. Why should it
pay higher for that service than those
who agree to carry their logs TO the
defendants mill or ship out their lum-
Der by the defendants road?
Discrimination is a more dangerous
power than high rates@if the latter is
charged impartially t o all. Hence the
statutes of congress and of the state,
while leaving the fixing OF rates in the
hands of commissions, have directly
and strictly forbidden under penalties.
any discrimination. Common carriers
are fixed for publis use. They exer-
else a branch of the public franchise.
They can condemn rights of way sole
~ because the land lis taken for a
public use" They are subject to gov
ernmental supervision and to the re-
duction or regulation of their charges
by the legislature directly or by COM
missioners appointed by it's authority.
Mum VS.. Illinois, 81 L. S. 112 and cita-
lions to same 9 Roses Notes 21-55. In
all the great countries of the world ex-
cept England and this country, the
railroads are largely or altogether
owned and operated directly by the
government, as was formerly the case
in North Carolina. In all countries
alike it is recognized that it is of vital
Importance that corporations exercising
such public use must be absolutely i'm
partial and equal in their charges for
tine same service.
All the service the plaintiff asks of
h defendant is to haul its logs to it's
saw mill in Wilmington. For this it
charges the plaintiff $3.50; it charges
others $2.10 i. E., 10 per cent. higher
to the plaintiff than to others for
exactly the same service. 1t costs the
defendant 10 more to render that ser
vice to the plaintiff than to render
the same service to others. 1t must
charge ali alike.
Could the defendant discriminate on
shipment of logs to Wilmington-for a
consideration of a subsequent benefit
to itself by obtaining a monopoly of
shipment of lumber out of Wilmington
it could seriously damage the BUSH
ness and prosperity of that city.
At hat point are steamships and sail
ing lines and other railroads, and this
competition making the town a diStrib-
uting centre is the source of it's prosper
ity. If the terms upon which the de-
PENDANT will haul logs into Wilmington
are that it haul the lumber out,
then Wilmington ceases as 10 that bus
mess to be q competing point. The
same discrimination could be mad Gf
this were allowable) in freight on cot
ton or corn or roSin and other articles
carried to Wilmington to be manu-
featured or put into other forms for
use. Discriminating rates as in this
case could be charged on the raw pro-
duct which would permit of the manu-
featured article, cloths, yarn, meal,
whiskey. turpentine and the like, be-
ing shipped out only over the defend
ants line. This is to place h pros
perity of Wilmington, and also of the
| producers of raw material contiguous
to that city along the inc of any of
the defendants Dad or branches, in
the control of the defendant.
The point here presented has beer
often decided and always, certainly al
| least in recent years, against the pow
er claimed by the defendant. In Bax'
! endale VS.. Railroad, "a E. c. L. 303, at
ter an elaborate argument, it vas held
by a very strong court as to thi;
point: 1T is not a legitimate ground
for giving a preference to n of the
customers of a railroad company tina
he engages to employ other lines OF
the company for the carriage of traffic
distant from and unconnected witt
the goods in question; and it is undue
and unreasonable to charge more or les.