The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-10
MrsLrAprNG TIE pEopLE.

We have in Mir. Conner a man who presumes that his audience is an ig- norant one. This was shown in the contention in his speech last Thursday night that legislative-made rate has more binding force than a Commlssion- made rate. The proposition is not borne out by the well-defined decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. This principle has been so well settled that no lawyer, or well-informed man in this day, undertakes to aues- tion it, except for the advancement of some personal or political ambition. The supreme test of all rates lies in the simple question as to whether or not the rate yields more than fair and rust return upon the railroad, its ap- purtenances and equipments, and this without regard as to whether the rate Is made by the Legislature or some Commissioner and authorized by the Legislature.
 In the case of smyth vs. Ames, 169 U. S. Report, the question arose under an Act of the Nebraska Legislature, as to the power of Legislature to make rate for railroads for the carriage of goods, so that their earnings would not cover the cost of doing the busi- ness, and some compensation therefor. The Act provided maximum rates for the railroads of Nebraska to charge. The railroads attacked this Act of the Legislature, and the rate fixed by said Act, as being unconstitutional, by req son of the fact that it did not allow a fair and just return upon the value of said railroads, their appurtenances and equipments. The Supreme Court of the United States held in that case:
 First-A railroad corporation is q person within the Fourteenth Amend ment forbidding a State to deprive any person of property without due process of law. or to deny any person the equal protection of the laws.
 Second-A State law, or regulations made thereupon, establishing rates for transportation by railroad that will de- prive the carrier of just compensation, is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amend ment, as depriving the carrier of his property without due process of law. and denying to 1t the equal protection of the laws.
 Third---while the State may fix rates of transportation, the question whether the rates are so unreasonably low as to deprive the carrier of it's property without such compensation, cannot be determined by State statute or regula- tions hereunder so conclusively that the matter may not become the subject of judicial inquiry.
 The same principle is held in the fol- lowing cases: C. NJ. and St. L. R. R. Co. vs. Minn., 134 U. S. 41s; Chicago and G. T R. R. co. vs. Weliman. 14S U. $ s99: Budd vs. New York, 14s, U. S., 5l7; Reagan ys. Farmers Loan Trust Co, 154 U. S, s62; St. L. and s. F. R. R. Co., vs. Gill, 156 U. 8. 649. Followed by a lbng line of decisions rendered since the Nebraska case.
 It will be seen from the above decis- ions that the railroads of Alabama would have exactly the same remedies against any rate fixed by the Railroad Commission; there would. however, be this difference: If a rate fixed by Railroad Commission should be set aside by the court, the Commission could at once fix new rate and adjust the rates from time to time to meet the conditions as they might arise; upon the other hand, if legislative made rate would be set aside, then no relief could be had until the next regu- lar session of the Legislature, unless the Governor should call that body in special session. Every man of common intelligence knows that it is necessary to constantly revise railroad rates, oth- erwise the wheels of progress would become absolutely clogged, and to call the Legislature in special session from time to time to fix railroad rates, would not only be impracticable, but involve such expense that the people of Ala bama would openly rebel against the proposition. It Is bit singular that any one should applaud Mir. Conner for his advocacy of this foolish proposi- ton.