The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-29

the provisions in the Eight Group Act
 which aifhorixed the Commission when
 1t m6xhf deem expedient--the statute
 itself not prescribing or defining what
 th ese conditions should be--to strike
 down the rates and classihcations fx-
 ed by the L.eEisiafure Itself. and sub
 stitute whatever clqssincations and
 rates the Commission chos to dx. was
 a plan attempted to- delegate the iegis- lative power to the Commission. which
 was forbidden by the Constitution of
 Alabama. The opinion points out the method which the Legislature could
 have puysued. # It wished to deal with
 future conditions and make changes in
 the law. It did not do so. however,
 and the result was that the change In sbrldied discretion of executive. ofnceSs.
 who were thus auth orixed to make laws
 in place of the law made by the Leg
 islature. 4
 seventh-That suit by carrier
 against ofysci&is who have the power to
 make rates in order to contest the req
 sonableness of the rate. is an ehort
 to nx the status of the property ana
 defne the rights of the owners and the
 public In the use of the property, and
 If judgmens is rendered in such suit
 by court of competent Jurisdiction It fixes the status of the property and the rights of the carrier and its cus-
 toners. and is binding on, all In the world. on the principle on whfsh rat uralizaticn fixes the status of citizen ship. and adJudicaticns in bankruptcy fix the status of insolvency.
 Eighth-That the orders of Court in such cases. or of statutes fixing rates. could not be set aside in suits between private partiee. as to particular t~~ l. from conforming to the rates fixed by the Court. If this were not SO. busi- ness paraiysis and legal papdemonium would result. where rates could be fixed from time by the verdicts of dif- ferent jurfes, at different places. in dif- ferent localities may be at the same time.
 An Arbitrary Attempt.
 Ninth--rhe provisions of the statute that a carrier in suit for not con- forming to the rate could not set up in defense of the action that the exe- cution of the rate had been enjoined by court of competent Jurisdiction, was an arbitrary attempt to destroy t,e statup fxed by court of competent Jurisdiction. and deprived the party of vested rights hereunder, and was an attempt by the Legislature to strike down the power of the courts. in cases OL WHICH kHEY nave JUFtSQlCbiDMs tO determine the rights of parties and the public In 6 matter of this kind. and was unconstitutional.
 Tenth-That the necessary and nat ura1 effect of the statute forbidding bars and fences at. stations to be used against intending passengers unless the carrier, sells tickets at the pre- scribed rates. was to prevent the car- Tier from taking proper precautions AA- N.H -~.A Ns...A k stations on arrival and departure of trains. and was not a proper exercise of the police power to see to 1t for the enforcement duty to a private individual. the nen-performaance of which did not involve peril to the pub lie, the public safety was sacrificed, and the object sought by the statute could have bcen better accomplished by a penalty upon the refusal to keep or sell the tickets.
 Eieventh-The Court states at great length the reasops which controlled the Court as to the putting in or sus- pension of rates when they are con tested. It holds 1t Is the duty of the Court to protect property and not to speculate with it insaoubtfu leases. and where there is a fair probability un- der the evidence that reduced tariffs will not give the carrier adequate com
 
 til full proof. and In the meantime. enjoin the enforcement of the rates. especially when by exsctilg bonds for the indemnity of psssengers and ship pers it can preserve their rights abso- luteiy and. So shape the proceedings that no matter what the final result may be. justice will be done each of the parties. If tbe rates are put in. the percentage of logs will be coneen- trated on the carriers, whereas the ex- cess amount retained from the carrier customer will be. shared by a great number. s Asf
 Twelfth--The Court aIIudes to the evidence as to the effect of the rates. which according to- the burden of preof. on preliminary hear ing. compliments contend would not produce more than 1 per cent. income at the highest, for any of the carriers. and in most instances. result in heavy losses; and holds that giving due weight 10 the Commissions side of the matter and that some items may have been charged to interstate commerce which belong to domestic commerce. and that valuations are too high. that the increase in the calculation of bus mess which might thereby be made. would not probably produce anything like adequate compensation.
 It takes, up the business done in two prior years, which were the most fa- vorable in the history of these car riers, and the comparisons of the effect | of preyious rates if put in force in l those years and concludes under ex- Isting conditions. 1t is not to be ex- oeeted that future business will be as or the volume of business | IS large, in the immediate future as In the past. It holds in view of these | things and the uncertainty pertaining | to them. and the fact that the rail- and discharging hundreds | If faithful employees. that 1t would not | ,e either for the interests of the carrier