The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-05-28
Present Rates Held By Judge Jones Not to Be Within the Rule of Reason And Central of Georgia And Western
 of Alabama Are Allowed Advances
tContiued From Page Ten. )

plainants property to that extent. The difference, as we have seen, amounted to many thousands of dollars
 THE MAxIMUM RATE ACT.
 Little need be said, in addition to what has been said in rate cases. lately decided in this court, concerning the act of Feb ruary 11th, 1907, which made the existing | freight rates on January list of that year the maximum rates on all freight not in- cluded in other acts.
 The proof shows that the rates at the date mentioned were unremunerative and had been adopted to meet the circum- stances and conditions which then sur rounded the traffic, largely by the vol untary act of the carrier; and although they were unremunerative and the result of the carriers voluntary act this would not prevent them from being confiscatory when fixed by statute. Lake Shore. etc. Railway vs Smith, |. s. supra. Had the carrier desired to conform to the eight group acts. which affected only part of its freight traffic, and to earn a fair remuneration on the rest of it's freight business, by increasing the rates on the residue. which the proof shows was too low, this statute prevented 1t from doing so, although the increase might be req sonable, under changed conditions. The argument of respondents that the rates, not affected by the eight group acts, should be increased to prevent the opera tion of the group acts from being con- fiscatory, overlooks the fact that this act perpetuating the rates in force on Jan uary 1SJ, prevents the carrier from doing so, and is in effect an admission that the group acts themselves are confiscatory. The carrier certainly has the right, if rates have been fixed too low in the past, to meet changed conditions by in- ereasing them, if the increase be reason able; and the statute In denying the car riers this right, and in forcing them to continue In operation confiscatory rates violates the constitution and is void.
 CLASSIFICATION AMOUNTS TO DE- NAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF |. THE LAWS
 Apart from the unreasonableness of the rates, the classification, as made in the original acts and changed by subsequent legislative and administrative authority, denies to each of these complainants the equal protection of the laws. Neither in the statutes. nor in the answers to the original and supplemental bills which at tackled the classification, nor in the brief for the respondents are the grounds stated upon which the classification was made. nor were any witnesses offered to sustain them. Respondents counsel state that they do not know on what par tieular basis the classification was made" They insist however. that the presump- 
 nishes a sufficient reason for the classi- fication, and that the complainants must prove the negative, that there was and is no just and rational excuse or reason for the classification, with that particular degree of certainty required in the proof of a mathematical problem, and they in effect carry their contention so far as to require the proof to exclude by negation the existence not only of all substantial reasons, but of fanciful, immaterial and even impossible data. In civil cases the evidence is sufficient if it produces a ra- tional conviction, although 1t may not re- move all doubt and uncertainty.-Woo vs. Brewer 75 Ala. 515 The proper meas ure of proof in civil cases is reasonable conviction or satisfaction of the mind and plaintiff has only to establish his claim by the usual measure of proof re- quired in civil suits according to the nature of the issue. Greenl. Evid. 7S-S0.
 Respondents rest their contention on this point mainly on the authority of Dow vs. Beidleman, 125 U. s. 691, de- cided when the prevailing doctrine in the supreme court was that the legis- lature might prescribe the maximum rates railroads should charge and that It's action in this respect was not sub ject to judicial review. so long as the rates prescribed permitted the earn ing of any profit. Without stopping to inquire whether that case has not been oyerruled by Cotting ys Kansas City Stock Yards Co. 183 U. s. 79-104, 1t suffices to say, If. as held by the su- preme court at the time Dow vs Beid- leman was decided. the legislature was the sole judge of the reasonableness of rates, the result was inevitable that the legislature was also the sole judge of the reasonab1eness of the classified tion, which is only one of the modes fo~ Iata affin xEb sonable in the particular case. The supreme court has long since overruled the old doctrine. in a number of sub sequent cases. commencing with Chi cago railroad vs. Minnesota. 134 U. s. and ending with ex. parte Young. 209 U s. 123. Dow vs. Beidleman. in con- sequence, can no longer be accepted as authority as to classification of rail- roads for rate making purposes. Long before the Beidleman case and those cited above, the supreme court an- nounced the ruling, to which 1t has ever since adhered, that in whatever language statute may be framed, it's intent and constitutional validity must be finally determined by "fts natural and reasonable effect upon the right involved, in view of the>situation to which the 1egislati ton is applied. Hen derson vs. the mayor 92 U. S. 259. PCS. But even Beidlemans case re- quired the same rule to be applied to all railroads of the same class" In default of which the court held 1t to be "a denial of the constitutional provision securing to all the equal pro- lection of the lawss'' Railroads are fin the same line of business. and any discrimination between them fin respect to the reward they are entitled to earn, must rest upon some aSubstantial diff ference in their relations which jus tifies the discrimination. As said in cotting vs. Kansas City Stock Yards. supra:
 While recognizing to the full
 extent the impossiblity of an i'm
 position of duties and obligations
 mathematically equal upon all, and
 also recognizing the right of class
 ification of industries and occupa-
 tions, we must nevertheless always
 remember that the equal protec-
 tion of the laws is guaranteed, and