Weekly Arizona journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1903-1908, 1908-02-19
SIGNIFICANT
JUDICIAL DECISION

chiefly on the grounds that Is !. made
quatc aud conG-catory. This decision
is significant aud important alikr ho.
cause of the issues involved and th"
character of the court. The supreme
court Of Pennsylvania has long been re-.
gardcd ~ one Of the ahlc-t and most
upright in the whole country, aud taat
ancient commonwealth, unfortunate in
some things. through all her history
has been fortunate in the composition
II her chief judicial tribunal. Tho dc
cisions Of that court on important mat
tcrs of general interest have always
had much weight with other courts.
and this decision is certain 10 hnv. a
marked influence in many other states.
II ought 30 be said. however. that
out Of seven Judges, three dissontcd
from this decision. That fact, Of
course, will weaken its influence.
During the last two years antirail
road sentiment has been very active
and powerful in this country and has
got itself embodied in great deal of
legislation which tnc railroads regard
az unfricndly and unjust. The New
York Times remarks: "Probably no
body knows how many anti railway
laws were offered last year, but ten
Legislatures passed III laws designed
to put railways in their place
In 1906 Ohio passc two-cent fare
law. and last year similar laws were
enacted in Arkansas. Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana. Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri. Nebraska, oklahoma. Penn.
sylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. The Legislature Of New
York passed like law, but Governor
Hughes vetoed it, and on the precise
grounds stated by the supreme court
Of Pennsylvania. lie is the only gov
crnor. we believe, who had the courage
70 take such action in tnc face Of an
insistcnt and powerful popular demand,
| anu NiWHlN Nv uflfN'f AllhA
justice and fair play required it of him.
Already public opinion in New York
has accepted his reasons and warmly
approves the veto.
II now remains for this anti.railway
legislation 10 be tried out in the courts.
, This is the first notable decision on the
questions involved. The decision de.
clares not only that public service
corporation is entitled to reasonable
profit on It's investment. but that profits
in one branch of the business must not
be called ON to pay losses in another,
That IL, il is not right to compel a rail.
way company to conduct its passenger
business at loss in tnc hope Of max.
ing up the loss out of the profits of the
freight department. Each must pay It's
way.
Besides, the two-cent fare may bc
, entirely reasonable in some localities
aud under some conditions, aud entirely
, unreasonable in other localities and
under other condition. alt will natur-
ally be argucd,' says the New York
Commercial, "that il one of the richest
railroads and rcputcdly the very best
managed in the world cannot derive a
> profit from twocent passenger fare
in well populated and vastly prosper
| h., l..
rate being profitable in sparscly set.
tied sections that yield a comparatively
small volume of traveli"
( Now, the American people want notn.
, ing but what is right and fair. When
provoked by what they believe TO be
, great wrongs, they may hastily resort
, To measures Of correction which are ex.
trcme and even unjust, but the sober
, second thought is sure TO come, and
then there is prompt retreat from any
excessive action, and public opinion "a,
last settles on tne line Of Justice and
4. right. II asks nothing more; and will
/ put up with nothing less. This was
, strikingly shown by what happened in
/ the Empire state last autumn. Public
!, sentiment urgently, almost angrily, de
/ manded the two.eent fare law, and
2 drove the Legislature into passing il
. But when the cool, clear headed and
! stalwart governor vetoed the bill, and
A plainly showed the epople that il wa,
/. inequitable, unfair and unjust, Their,
/ was AN entire change of public opinion
4 Tine people said, the governor is right
and we want nothing but what is right
The railroads have themselves e
\ blame for the hostile public sentimen,
they complain Of. BY meddling will
. politics, by Juggling with stocks, b,
; organizing gigantic monopolies for tn,
J. profit of the few, by inequitable dis
a | elimination. and often onnressiva nm.