The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-09-04
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Supreme Court Declares a State Stat.
ute NuIi--Act Holding Railroads
Liable for Loss or Damage to Goods
Shipped Over Their own or connect
ing Lines Invalid.

Shipped Over Their own or connect
ing Lines Invalid.
Columbia, Aug. 31.-The supreme
court today rendered a decision de-
claring unconstitutional an act of the
general assembly, passed in 1909.
which attempts to make a railroad
liable for loss of or damage to. goods
shipped over it's line, whether or not
the loss or damage occurred on it's
line or connecting line On the
ground that this act is demonstrations
al, being an interference with in
terstate commerce, the supreme court, /,
in an opinion written by Associate
Justice Woods, reverses the lower
courts in the cases of William Lewis
vs. the Atlantic Coast Line and S, r,
Venning VS.. the Atlantic Coast Line,
In the case of r. Keith Charles
against the same railroad company. In
an opinion written by Associate Jusx
tice Jones, the supreme court sus.
tains the constitutionality Of another
act passed in 1903, which imposes on
railroads a penalty for failure to set
tie claim in 90 days.
In view of the agitation in regard
to the regulation of railroads and the
widespread discussion of legislation
on this line, these decisions of the
special interest at this time, especially
to shippers. The decision in the Ven.
ming case is lengthy and states fully
the courts view on the act of 1903.
The facts are about as follows:
The Belknap Hardware Company,
in January. 1905, delivered to the
Southern Railway at Louisvine, Ky,
steel range and warming closet,
consigned to the plaintiff at Man.
ming. S. c. The defendant, Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad Company, the
terminal carrier. delivered to plaintiff
the warming closet only, and this ac-
ton was brought to recover s2i dams
ages for failure to deliver the range,
and $50 statutory penalty for failing
to adjust and pay the claim within
90 days. 1t was testified that the
range was never received from the
Southern Railway by the Atlanta
Coast Line at Columbia. The masis.
trate gave Judgment for plaintifr In
the sum Of s21 damage and $50 for
failing to adjust and pay the claim Ia
80 days, and on appeal the circuit
court affirmed the Judgment.
The supreme court, following the
decision in similar cases. held that
the receipt by the defendant Of the
warming closet devolved upon it the
burden Of showing it had never rev
ceived the range. The Judgment of
the magistrate was not based on the
disbelief Of testimony on this point,
but on the statute of 1903 GA Stat
u under which the defendant as one
Of the connecting carriers would he
liable without respect to whether the
range was lost on it's line or on that
OF another carrier. 1.-The vital ques.
ton, therefore, said Justice Weods
'is whether this act Of 1908 must ss
held unconstitutional as an attemut
to regulate interstate commerce." The
opinion then considers fully the eopr
stitutionality Of this act, whi.h wss
intended to make radical changes In
the law as to the liability OF carriers
Tor losses or damage occurring on
connecting lines. Decisions .of tha
United States supreme court and
other courts are cited to show that a
stipulation in the bill of lading, limits
ing the liability OF each carrier to tn
own line. would be a reasonable iims
itation.