The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-30

When however. tue earlier decisions Court declared that the Lssisiafurs could not make rates which would not | permit adequate. compensation. and susS ss oSssns sss Ss as rsi | essarily arose as to what determined t ths p5Spprissy Of prsl:minoT,y ,yn inipne, 2. en enisa hs n5sncs,on hscss wc o i4n shs proof showed some profit. The direction or What is then requisitc. Is to determine. face cf the situstion. when the court is < reasonable probshllify that the. vol. rates. would amount % to adequate or l just compensation. What was said In l some of the earlier cases on this sub- s ths np Tus of dsooS and that the courts and not the Legis- n rsv Ts the fnal RsIrssS ssstees eonpany Fed. 6e. Justice Woods. under the doct- rine then prevailing, held the court had no power to Interfere with the able 1t was apparent in that case that there would De considerable profit, l The Georgia Commission claimed that tho value of the property. rhe Rail l road Company claimed that the value of the property was assessed entirely tarifE upon the value as fixed by the | Commission would amount to confis- cation. So far as to the percentum of compsrsation orc.1n.d on the yaiys was 0 dife e ference between ss and 10 per cent. profit. It being apparent that there wSSid De some Pro Jgstlss nnarss hsS WSoao no l power to Interfere What he decided I In fact, was that some profit being ap- parent, and whatever it was. being pensation at all that the only way td l determine whether there would De con- nscation was by putting In the rates. in Raiiroad Company vs, Dey, ss Fed | 6s4. quoted Justice Woods ianguage. | saying: aI do not endorse itfas or o9 tse sst ssS 1 Where the effect of the rates IS doubt kul. with probability that they will prove compensatory end and the ass.ctea ampufs is comparatively small, I think the courts may we'll wait for the test or experi ence." In that ease only per @ ssns l the whole intra state tariff IS involved. and the aggregate sum of the reouc- | fions is very large. When Judge -compensstory," he was speaking of l them in the sense in which he used | the term compensatory in former ydss Wien m tlsat Judge had decided "the righf of iudiciai interference exists l when the schedule of rates establish ed Eill fatl tc secure ectoonnssflon to fns oWnsr! from | their investment. As to the amount or such compensation. if some compensa- I ton or reward is in fact secured, Sne | Brewer, therefore, found in that case, | that there was g probability that there l would be sufficient income. aecording l in other words, that the carrier would | get all he was entitled to receive unQer | the law. and, therefore. refused the | the present rule, when 1t is shown that kthe carrier will derive some income, It | does not at all follow that 1t IS ade- Viii Viii receive such reward as the Con I stitutiomR Rprescribes he snail nave. l Judge Brewers decision in that case Is, therefore direct autnority ior snS | parent on the facts presented, that the l carrier will receive some compensa. tion yet if there Is a probability that pensa ton. there should be no experi- menting In order to determine the justice of the rates. but they should be l viii enable the court to mete out such justice as the equities of the case re- duire. .....f. judge. declined to experiment wsth grain rates in Railroad Co. V. Board of commissioners; 7s Federal Sss; Cur speculate as to the effect of rates in the cases reported in the Surene Court under the title of Reagan 7. Farmsrs' Far. ger d dSsn 1aT Trps5 sssSS Go ds S4 tSe G same ss thing :n Paiatka Water Works. V. City oi Palatka, 127 Federal, 1SI;, Circuit 51dse Ssrdss q deslRef to coD s5DsrRRePR s R Commission. 12S Federal s47. Tn Cot ting V. Kansas City stockyards Co. 1ss U. s. 7s, 80, Circuit Judge Tnayei ment of charges for slaughtering cat. tie. and after final hearing dsssolvec the injunction and dismissed the Dill stated. if appeal should be taken, n view of the heavy. loss which woult fall upon the stockyard companies, Il course met with the approval of the sMSR65s%i McR6ensd cGS5 1S5 U shifa i5a m dSss of of the the Status % if
 court @ there said: ''This power un. s1ss hsn aRa snSHa may result from the effect of the de gree rendered." but 1t is discretion sry Iower and Tits exercise or bars non There is not, as has been so vigorousl, contended in some quarters, though not by counsel in this case, any gen.
 
 to solve doubts as to the effects oi rates by ordering them put in force al once. regardless of what may happen to the owner of the property. Icacl case must depend upon it's own facti and circumstances. and no useful pur pose will be subserved by analyzint the cases in which experiments witt the property of carriers in the matter of rates has been allowed and. wh CT 1t has been denied. The duty of gov. ernment and courts is to protect prop erty rights. and not to experiment
 Il ,tigation. when the final right IS matter of fair doubt. but rather tC wait until the full proof justifes tht | court on final decree in declaring tho ultimate justice of the case. No wher, of late, has the doctrine been taugh
 by the great chancellors, that a cour of equity should say to a property owner. who asked preventive reme, dies against an act directed against plain legal right for the protection whtch the remedies at law are utterly inadequate, and threatens irreparable injury to a property. right, if not pre- vented.-"l do not know whether yot will be hurt by the act of which you complain; but being in some doubt about 1t. I will not stop the act TOT the present. If l am wrong about tn, injury it will do to you or your prop erty. you can come back and show me that the wrong has been done, and then the court will prevent further wrong to you"
 What Per Cent. of Profit Is the Carrie,
 Entitled to Earn Upon His Invest,
 XVII. No court has undertaken t, determine any exact percentage O proht which the carrier is entitled tS earn upon the value of the property de voted the SefVica If da0endS ,.r,o