The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-05-17
MAJORITY OF COMMISSION
 DECLINES TO SUPPORT COMER
 IN HIS RADICAL RATE MOVE


 The Injunction of the Federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States not to compare rates in two States to fix them for one or the other unless the conditions are similar. was carefully studied and obeyed by the Associate Commissioners. In this they differ from the chairman, who, all the while, has harped on the rate compari- sons of Alabama and Georgia. This, too, in the face of tEc testimony of the carriers that conditions in the two com monwealths are substantially dissimi- Ter.
 President Conner appeared much re- faxed yesterday afternoon right after the executive session had closed He has never recovered from his indispo- sition. however which he has suffered during the whole inquiry. He can now afford to leave off the study Of rate problems for a while and will return this morning to his home in Birming- ham for a rest. He will hardly return to Montgomery again until June 6, when the next regular meeting of the Commission will be held.
 Commissioners Sanders and Tunstail have already returned to their respec- tive homes.
 The Sanders Opinion.
 The full text of the opinion adopted by the Commission is as follows J. w. Huger, President. vs. Seaboard Air
 Line Railway.-Specific Rate on
 Fertilizers from Montgomery to
 Hurtsb6ro, Ala. Railroad Commission of Alabama vs.
 Seaboard Air Line Railway, ct als.---
 To Show Cause Why Rates on Fer
 tilizers in Alabama Should Not Be
 Revised and Reduced.
 nr LDe RalAay e9 as
 To Show Cause Why All Freight
 Tariffs in Alabama Should Not Be
 Revised and Reduced.
 Opinion by Associate Commissioners
 Sanders
 This cause originated in an applica- tion for a specific rate on fertilizers over the Seaboard Air Line Railway from from this it was enparfed di1fp0 info an A in quiry on the part of the Railroad Com mission as to why there should not be revision and reduction on fertilizer bama; and from this the question was still further enlarged into general in vestfgation of all freight tariffs. the several railroads operating In the State having been cited to show cause why their freight tariffs should not be re. duced.
 As the last case involves the consid- eration of all rates in the State, and embraces the subject matter of the two first mentioned inquiries. for the pur- poses of this opinion, all of said cases are hereby consolidated.
 Commissions Authority Limited.
 The Railroad Commission of Alabama IS a statutory body, and derives its powers from the act creating it..
 Section 10 of the Act of the Legisla- ture of Alabama, approved February 2Sth, 1903, prescribes,
 That the Commission shall exercise watchful and careful supervision over all tariffs and their operations, and re- wise the same from time to time as jus tice to the public and the railroads may require. and increase and reduce any of the rStes as experience and business operations may show to be just, but in revising the tariffs, the Commissioners i of the service to be performed, the en- tire business of the railroad, It's earn ings from passenger and other traffic. and so revise the same as to allow fair and just return on the value of the railroad, its appurtenances and equip ments."
 This provision that rates shall be fixed so as to allow a fair and just re- turn Is in harmony with judicial in- depreciation of the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States to the effect that State law or regulation made hereunder estab- fishing rates for transportation by a railroad which depriVes the carrier of just compensation, Is repugnant to the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment, in that it deprives the carrier of its property without due process of law. and denies to 1t the equal protection of the laws.
 Following are some of the adjudica- tions of the court of last resort touch
 Tn the case of Stone vs. Farmers Loan and Trust Company. 1l6, U. s. 3O7, the court, spea king through Chief Jus
 While a State has mower to fix the charges of railroad companies for the within its own jurisdiction, unless re- stained by valid contract, Or unless what Is done amounts to a regulation | of foreign or interstate commerce such | tE not without limit. and that l under pretense of regulating fares and | freights, the State cannot require a property without reward; neither can it | do that which in law amounts to I | taking of private property Tor public use without just compen.sation' or
 In Georgia R. and Banking Company vs. Smith, 12S U. S.. page 174, 1t was said:
 That the power of the State to pre- | scribe the charges of railroad com pany for the carriage of persons and | merchan disc within it's limits-was l subject to the limitation that the car | riage is not required without reward, | taking of property for public use with | out just compensation; and that what | Is done does not amount to regulation | of foreign or interstate commerce.. | In Chicago M and St P. Ky. Co. vs. Minnesota 134 U. s. 413, the court said:
 If the company Is deprived of the power of charging reasonable rates for l the use of it's property, 1t is deprived of the lawful use of it's property, and | this in substance and effect of the | property itself. without due process of ! law, and in violation of the Constitu- | ton of the United States and in so far | as 1t Is thus deprived. while other per | sons are permitted to receive reason | able profits upon their invested capi- tai, the company is deprived of the ! equal protection of the laws. In the Case of Budd vs. New York, 143 L. s. 51T. the court declared that | the power was not one to destroy, or l the power to compel the doing of the ! service without reward, or to take prt- vate property for public use without | Just compensation, or without due pro- l cess of law
 In smyth ys. Amos. 16s Y. S. 46G, it Is said:
 A State enactment or regulation made under the authority Of a State | enactment establishing rates for the | transported tion of persons or property ! bv railroad, that will not admit of the ! carrier earning such compensation as under all the circumstances is just to 1 1t and to the public, would deprive such 1 carrier of its property without due ! process of law. and deny to it the equal 1 iirotection e the laws, and would therefore. b" repngnant = the Four | teenth Araendm ent of the Constitution of the United States
 TO the same effect is Reagan vs Farmers Loan and Trust Company (No l D. 154 [. s. 362;
 'Tbe Commissions authority, there fore must be exercised within the con l stitutional and legislative limits above i dafned. It is powcrless to cstaoltsn n l and enforce a rate which does not yield | 10 the carrier "a fair and just return on the value of the railroad, It's ap- | purtenances and equipments.