Debates in the Senate of Georgia on the consideration of the bill to modify the railroad commission law : with appendix

WITH PPENDIX.
I

"T. .Ho~. JOB

MADDOX, of th 42d lh. t.

" ROBT; F ~ LLIGA T," " l::it. '

" F. B. COLbEY,

((

H

" I.E 1 JOB TO',

l

..

" D. E. SMI1 H,

" " :32<1 l,

CI II. C. SIfEl FIELD, " ' f l h

" D .\ . ~U" :LL,

" " 8th

" J .. 1. SMIT II In,O.r," ,

DEBATES
IN THE
SENATE OF GEORGIA,
ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL
-TO-
MODIFY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION LAW.
WITH APPENDIX.

HON. JOHN W. MADDOX, of the 42d Dist.

" ROBT. FALLIGANT," "1st. "

" F. H. COLLEY,

"" 28th."

" T. B. CABANISS, " " 22d "

" LEM JOHNSON,

" " 3rd "

" D. E. SMITH,

" " 32d "

" H. C. SHEFFIELD, " "9th "

" D. A. RUSSELL,

" " 8th "

" J. M. SMITH,'

" " 30th "

" JOHN S. DAVIDSON," "18th"

HON. J. W. MADDOX, OF THE FORTY-SECOND DISTRICT.
After the reading of the Journal in the Senate, the Speaker announced the special order to be tIle consideration of thjl bill amending'the act. of legislation creating the Railroad Commission. After the reading of the bill by the Clerk, Mr. Maddox, of the 42d District, spoke as follows:
I propose to precipitate proceedings' by moving the adoption of the bill as a substitute by the Senate. I do this for the purpose of facilitating business. The bill, or substitute as reported by the Senate Commit... tee, should be open to any amendment that. the wisdom of the body may find necessary to perfect ft.
It seems to be the general desire of every Senator with whom I have spoken on the question, to modify the law in some respects. They differ very widely as to how it should be done, but as a general rule I may say, with two or three exceptions, there is not a man here but has expressed himself in favor of modifying it in some way.
Now, Mr. President, upon this idea I offer this motion in order to give everyone a chance to modify this bill. Mr. President, I do not claim perfection for this bill. It is open to amendments or improvements, This is a great qnestion, It is one of the most important questions that has come before this assembly since we have met. It is one that addresses itself to the judgment of every Senator-not to their prejudices. but to their judgment. The people of the State of Georgia are looking forward to this body doing something with this Railroad Uommission. It is true that the people differ. Some of them are in favor of retaining the Commission as it now stands; others are in favor of modifying tYleCommission, but the people, as a general rule, are looking to us to do whatever will benefit Georgia most. It is not what will benefit the railroads alone, but what will benefit the State at large. Now, Mr, President, last winter, when the original bill, which was offered by the Senator from the First, was before the Railroad Committee, I, for one, objected to the bill or to voting at an upon the measure at that time, because, like a great many other citizens, and, I may say. a large majority of their representatives, I did not understand the' bill. I did not understand the question-I did not know anything about it. I wanted time to investigate 'it. I may say here to-day it was on my motion, more perhaps than any other, that a committee was appointed to investigate this question and repurt back to the General Assembly. I told the Senator from the first district that if I was called upon to vote' upon the question at that time, I should certainly sustain the law as it then stood. That I did not understand the question j I did not know what to do, and if caned upon at that time to vote on the question I should vote to sustain it as it then stood.. A Railroad Uommittee was was raised by the Sen~te.. I had the honor to be one of that committee.

4

I have investigated this question, Il!l I think honestly and industriously,

but I cannot say to my own satisfaction fully, and the bill, Mr. Presi-

dent, that is now before the Senate, I offered as the result of my inves-

tigation. I do not claim perfection for it, neither does the committee.

It is in the wisdom of this body to perfect it, as it ought to be done.

The constitutional convention of 1877, incorporated in that constitution

the clause which is now in.existence in regard to that matter It seems

that prior to that time, th~t in a great many ways the railroads had im-

posed upon the people of 'this State, and' therefore such legislation as

we have now was at that time autltorized. But, Mr. President, experi-

ence, I think, has taught us that at that time we went too far in this

legislation; that it is too extreme for this State and the people at large.

Now, Mr. President, wi~h these few remarks, although I intended when

this bill was first brought before the House to elaborate in full, but being

unwell this morning and unable to do so, I submit this bill as it now

stands before the Senate, claiming hereafter the right to give it the full

and fair discussion and give the Senate the benefit of my views upon

the subj ect.

Mr. N orthen-If that motion should prevail, it will cut off all possi-

bility of amendment to the substitute, as I understand it.

The Speaker (Mr, Davidson)-that is the ruling of the chair.

Mr. N orthen-It occurs to me there may be some possible difference

among Senators as to the provisions in this bill. I would prefer, if the

friends of the measure see fit, to leave it open to such amendments as

may occur to the minds of the Senators" in order that the purposes of

the measure may be reached safely, and I move, therefore, that it be

taken up by sections.

Mr. Maddox-That was my object in making the motion, in order

that all amendments might be duly considered, and I agree that it may

be taken up by sections.



The motion was carried, and the Clerk read the first section.

The first section was agreed to.

Clerk read the second section.

Mr. McBride, of the Thirty-Eighth District-I desire to offer an

amendment to strike out of the substitute all the words after the word

"Commissioners," in the thirty-first line and second section, and I de-

sire to explain my reason for offering that amendment. Now, sir, I am"

neither committed to the support of this bill, nor do I feel disposed to

pass it as it is if it can be p~fected. If that amendment should be

adopted, then I say for the information of the Senate, I shall propose to

add after the word "Commissioners," and the decision of the Commis-

sioners shall be final upon the issue or issues tried or determined. Now,

sir, it seems to me from complaints from railroad compani~s, and from

concessions from the people generally, that there is something necessary

to be done in thig matter.

I grant you, sir, for the purpose of protecting the public interest,

these corporations are and should be subject to the control of the State.

5
I say this, that the right of property of individuals is not subject to Legislative control. No individual product for business is subject to be priced by law; but these railroad companies stand upon a somewhat different footing.. They are established by law for public uses by public interests, and therefore are properly governed by law. But, I say, in the first place; they should have the right to fix .heir rates. Their rates should not be forestalled in the way now provided by law. I am, therefore, in favor of .this much of that bill, but I am opposed to the appeal system suggested by this bill. The remainder of the bill provides for a system of appeal, first to a jury in the Superior Court. I ask the Senate what does ajury of twelve men know about the administrative policy of a railroad? Suppose you complain of a rate fixed on the Central Road from here to Griffin, a distance nf forty miles, and a jury in Spalding county passes on that issue, they find a certain rate is proper and just. Suppose you then complain of another rate on another road on the same class of property, a like distance, and the jury of that county found a different rate, and so on with the different counties of the State, there would be no uniformity of rates. Suppose, then, you come to the Supreme Court, where. they are crowded with questions of law, and they know nothing .of the administrative policy of a railroad company any more than the juries that previously tried the cases. So that, in my opinion, the appeal system, I1s it is proposed, is impracticable, and should be stricken from the bill. I am willing to support the first portion of the bill, but without this amendment I cannot vote for the bill.
Mr. Maddox-If I am interested in any portion of this bill more than another it is .that the gentleman proposes to strike. I am not a representative of any railroad corporation or any particular body interested in this subject, but I stand he~e as one of the representatives of the people of the State of Georgia, and I think there is nothing that would redound to the welfare. of the whole people of the State more than the adoption of this law, and give the railroads the right to appeal to the juries of this country. In the first place, I want to ask why it is that the railroads of this country should be proscribed as they are in this State. There is, Mr. President, nothing like it elsewhere under the sun, that is, where the English government prevails, except as to railroads: Now we hear men who propose to be friends to the railroads arguing against this right of appeal, that the juries cannot understand the question; For that reason they say the railroads ought not to have the right of appeal. This is a very strange proPosition. If the railroads are willing to submit to the verdict of the juries, then the people ought not to, and thcy cannot ob. ject. Ahd why? 'What is the experience in the past as to juries? What is the result of the jury trials between the railroads and the peo. pIe? Is it not generally said, and is it not true in nine cases out of ten, that if the jury favors oris partial, or is biased in any respect, it is for the people of the country as against the railroads? For the prosperity of the State of Georgia this section of the bill ought to be adopted in preference to any other. The railroad legislation as it stands upon the

6
statute book of the State of Georgia to-day has virtually stopped every dollar of capital from coming into that kind of enterprise in this State, and it will be an effectual bar until it is modified. And why? There are no capitalists that want to put their money into any kind of business that is proscribed or outlawed from the courts of this country and left to an arbitrary commission to say what is right, !tnd what is wrong, and how their property shall be controlled. It is unjust. It is a plain proposition. You ought to take the common sense view of'it, and not look at it from any confused standpoint or through any cloud that may be attempted to be thrown arouna it. The capit!tlist comes uninvited into our State to build it up. They put their money into railroads, and there is nothing that does more to develop the country than the railroads. Will they continue to invest their money in ,his way if you deny them the right to appeal to the courts of this country? When we tell them the juries of the country may set up the claims against the railroads and sign verdicts against them for thousands of dollars, but when they begin to regulate their prices or rates it must be submitted to an arbitrary commIssion, and they are denied the right of appeal to the courts. You say that juries cannot understand these questions as to the matter of rates, but when the road. runs over a man and cuts off a finger or leg they are perfectly competent to assess thousands of dollars as damages against the railroad. They are competent to pass upon a man's liberty or his life. They are competent to decide whether he shall hang or serve his term in the penitentiary for life or be given his liberty. 'fhey are competent for that. The grand juries of this country are competent to regulate the finances of your eounties,and they do it from year'~.end to year's end. The petit juries of this country are competent to decide the violation of all sorts of contracts that occur between men, except they be with railroads, and then they have not sense enough, it is said.
Mr. McBride-I desire to ask the Senator if there will be anything settled by the verdict of a jury, or on the final.determination of the Supreme Court, except the matters involved in some particular case, and I ask the Senator if the next day after the trial and verdict the same company could'nt fix a different and higher rate on the same artiele of freight?
Mr. Maddox-I am absolutely surprised at being asked that question by a lawyer. Does not the Supreme Court set the precedents in all our cases by which we are governed? I answer no. No such thing will occur.
Mr. McBride-I didn't ask the Senator what he thought would occur, but wouldn't that be the legal effect? Immediately after the verdict this same railroad company could fix upon the same article at the same place a different or a higher rate of freight if they desired to.
Mr. Maddox-I may say .to you that if a man carries a pistol in his pocket and the Supreme Court finds him guilty, he won't do the same thing again, because h~ is sllbject to the same ljtw. Would they be

fool enough to violate the law again when they know they would have to pay the costs and attorneys' fees?
Mr. McBride-Suppose the Supreme Court established a rate of freight, would it be good for the next month? How long would it be a good precedent?
Mr. Maddox-I cannot answer. It would be just about as certain as it is now. The Commissioners establish the rate to-day-how long does that last? It lasts about long enough for the railroads to get their connections throughout the world fixed up, then comes a dispatch from the Commission and changes the whole thing. These precedents from the Supreme Court will be established as in all other cases. They will be governed by nothing except the facts in each particular case. Were that not a fact we would not have the seventy-one volumes of Supreme Court reports that are' out now. With all due respect to the gentleman, I think the proposition is a foolish one. These precedents will be established, and as each case comes up they will be governed from time to time by the precedents as fixed by the Supreme Court.
This State may be one of the most prosperous in the Union, but it will not be so unless this claim for the right of appeal be allowed. No sensible man will put his money in any concern that is governed by
three men with no power of appeal. r ~ay, gentlemen and Senators, it
is wrong. It is wrong in principle. And why? Because it is against every precedent' both in England 'and America. There is nothing American in it. A corporation is nothing but a combination of citizens.
There is no reason why they should not have the right to go to the
courts to have wrongs redressed and "rights decided. r can see n; rea-
son in saying that they shall be debarred these privileges or should not have the right to have a jury to render a verdict in their cases. Gentlemen, it is the highest pride and proudest boast of an American citizen that his rights and his life and his liberty can be tried by the peers of his country; yet when we come to the railroads it is said that they cannot have these rights because they are railroads.
R. G.Mitchell-Doesn't the same rule apply to the citizen who has business with the railroad-this denial of the right to appeal?
Mr. Maddox-If the gentleman will allow me, r am coming to that. r stand here to-day representing the people of Georgia, not the railroads. r will answer the gentleman; If my information is correct, some few
years ago in the State of California they established a railroad commission. The railroads endeavored to have that commission changed and modified, just as we are trying to do here to-day, but they did not succeed. Then th"y allied themselves with the Republican party and captured the commission, and ever since that time the people have been clamoring for a repeal. It is to guard against snch a state of facts that
we desire this bill passed. r am here for justice and equity. It is noth-
ing but justice that this thing should be done. This great power in the State of Georgia has upheld the Democratic party, but if they cannot get this relief you will find it alligned somewhere else in their e:tt:ort to

8

get relief and justice and right to themselves. There is no question

about it, it is going to be done unless we attend to this question ourselves,

and it is the duty of senators and statesmen not to allow themselves to

to be governed by prejudice, for after awhile we may be doing as they

are in California-the people themselves may be clamoring for the right

of appeal. That is just exactly what the people will want before long

if this thing goes on i there is no doubt about it. I see no reason ip. the

world (you will pardon me for referring to my friends, the prohibition-

ists) why they should not form a coalition with the railroads. I doubt

not they would take them in and give them charge of the railroad com-

mission, and then where would the people be? Then you would say

that the right of appeal was an American right. Suppose they go over

to the Republican party with all their combined forces and come into

power? I say it is possible I It has been done. I believe to-day there

is no more curse ridden railroad state in the Union than California. It

is the people there who are clamoring for the right of appeal. It is

nothing but just and right that the railroads should have this privilege,

and I hope the Senate will not concur in the gentleman's amendment:

I assert again that if capitalists have ~ right to go into court and ad-

just their contracts, they will invest, but under no circumstances will

they invest their money subject to an arbitrary cillnmlssion, and I think

1'0 no successful man would do so.

make the proposition plain to you,

would you do it? Would any of you do it? There is not a man in the

house who would put one dollar in a railroad to be subject to a railroad

commission. If you would not dq it, can you ask anyone else to do it,

when three men or three railroad commissioners could get up and decide

the whole thing? The gentleman there says the juries do not under-

stand the question.

It has been well suggested by some correspondent of the newspapers,

if one expert and two lawyers without evidence can fix rates, and tell

what is right, an intelligent jury in a court of Georgia, with the court

to charge them and lawyers to explain this matter, and beyond all, with

the evidence before them, can't tell what is right and just better than a

Railroad Commission; I ask you whether a jury, under these circum-

stances, cannot get at the justness of the matter better than one railroad

expert and two lawyers that know nothing about it? It does seem to

me, gentlemen, that it is the most reasonable proposition in the world

to allow the people an appeal to the courts. I can see no reason why

you should not do it. Every thing in our system of government points

to it, and the genius of the spirit of liberty of the country demands that

these people should have the right of appeal. For that reason I am for

it, heart and soul. We should be careful in our action here to-day, that

our children do not curse the hour we allowed this statute to stand. It

is not American. It is like the golden calf in the Israelitish camp.

We have got to get it out, or we will never succeed'.

Mr. Maddox-I understand the Senator to saythat any party may go

into court now, whether he has a right of action or not. I will ask him

9
if the party does not show in court that he has a right of action, is he not dismissed at once?
Mr. Ray-Yes, sir; that is so. That is the way you want to fix it before these Commissioners. Y ouwant to dismiss him, and mulct him in a large amount of costs, unless he can show that he is individually injured. I think if he can show that the town or county in which he resides is injured, he ought not to be dismissed. I do not think that you' ought to apply the rule that he must show he has been directly damaged. I think he ought to be allowed to show that he has been indirectly damaged. I think this amendment ought to be adopted, in order that the people may have the largest and freest kind of right to apply to the Oommission for relief.
Mr. Maddox-This is the most remarkable amendment that I have yet heard offered to this measure. N ow, the proposition is, that any tramp qetween here and the town of Newnan, if he desires it, can raise a case against the Railroad Commission, without any injury or interest in the case whatever, and the Commissioners ought not to dismiss his case. Is that not the strangest amendment that ever washea.rd under the sun? He actually proposes to put it in the power of a tramp, or any party whatever, to devil the Courts and Commission when they have not the slightest interest in the world, and he says the Commission ought not to dismiss the case if he can't show a direct interest.
This bill proposes that any person interested in this matter, or affect~ ed by it, may go to the Commissioners. But here he proposes to put an amendment that allows anybody with, or without, interest to make a case against the railroad, and says that he ought not to be dismissed, even if he can't show he is interested in the matter. Who eyer heard of such a proposition in court? Strange to say, he goes on further in . J:tis amendment. and desires to strike that part which says, these cases must be plainly set out in the petition. This is like II good deal of the legislation that is directed against these railroad matters. It is a proposition that would not be heard in regard to any other class of people for a minute, in court. or on any other class of subjects. Our courts would not allow it, and yet he says it is good for the railroads; that any tramp between here and Newnan can raise a case and go into court, and even though he has no interest in the matter, he ought not be dismissed.
Mr. Ray-How many tramps do' you know of that have brought cases to the courts?
Mr. Maddox-I know of a good many tramps that have been brought before the courts. According to the gentleman~s own idea very few cases are brought. Where then is the foundation for the idea that the court will be filled with litigation? What are you scaring about? Now, gentlemen, this proposition is absolutely unreasonable. This bill requires that by the rules and regulations under which they are governed requires any party interested to plainly set out their cause, just as the statutes of Georgia require any citizen to do, and he must show an interest or go out of court. Yet the gentleman proposes to inject Into this

10
bill something that is unheard of. I don't think it ought to be adopted, and I am satisfied from what I know of this Senate it will not be.
Mr. Ray-The Senator has made a mistake in his statement. He says that I have offered to strike out the clause that requires the complainant to plainly set forth his injury. I do not offer to strike that out. I approve of it.
Mr. Maddox-Then I misunderstand the reading of the amendment, and I withdraw that part of my remarks.
Mr. Ray-As amended it would read this way: "Any person may file before the Commissioners appointed by this act' a petition in writing in which the cause or ground of complaint against such railroad company to the wrong or injury of the complainant, to the community or town where he may reside or do business, .shall be plainly and distinctly set forth." There is nothing stricken that ought not to be stricken. It leaves the bill perfect in regard to the requirement for the complainant to set forth his cause plainly and distinctly. My only object is to give the citizen of a county the right of action in a cause which affects the whole county or city before the Commission.
Mr. Maddox-If the gentleman will yield to one question I would like to ask him, as a lawyer, to define what an action is under the common law of the land.
Mr. Ray-An action is a plaintiff's cause of complaint, plainly and distinctly set forth.
Mr. Maddox-If this party you speak of is not interested either directly or indirectly, how can he have an action?
Mr. Ray-Under the present la.w the right of a(jtion must be plainly and distinctly set forth, showing that the individual is damaged or. wronged, and showing how he is injured. I say that if this bill is adopted as it now. stands, that he will not be permitted to go further and show that his county or city is damaged, and before you can get a complaint of that kind before the Commission you must get the city authorities or county authorities to act. I say that any citizen of a town ought to be allowed to made a case before the courts, if his town is affected. But under this bill they are going to confine this right to a person that .has been directly injured, If you pass this bill you will find that many of those 'who bring cases before this Commission will be dismissed and sent home mulcted in the costs. This complaint, you will find. will. be general all over the State, that where a town or county is being discriminated against, and being injured by these overcharges, are denied the right of redress and an action :by any individual except the officers of that corporation or county.
Mr. Maddox,-If you have two or three citizens who are injured, ~on'i you know that your city, or county, or town would join in making the protest?
Mr. Ray-l don't know it, sir.

11
McBRIDE AMENDMENT.
Mr. Maddox-I would like to ask the Senator from the ThirtyEighth, in the event the railroads should be dissatisfied with the Commission's rates of freight, without a complaint is made by some one, who would the railroads appeal to?
Mr. McBride-They w(mld appeal, as provided by this section, to the Superior Court of the county.
Mr. Maddox-Who would be the parties in the absence of any complaint as to the rates?
Mr. McBride,-The Railroud Commission could be made the parties. My object is only t6 perfect the bill according to the views of some of th" Senators. If this should be found defective it can be provided for hereafter. But this does not touch the merit of the amendment proposed by myself. Mr. Maddox~Sofar as I am concerned, I would be very glad to accept an amendment that would seem to meet approval or be of benefit either to the people or to the railroads, but this provi~ion, it seems to me. puts the peopie and the railroads in a worse position than they were before, if anything. It provides just exactly what the law is now as I understand it. The railroads make their rates, or in other words, they are submitted to the R,dlroad Oommission, are revised by the Commission and are handed down, That is your provision, and that is what is done now; no more nor less. Mr. McBride-Does the existing law provide for an appeal from the Commission? Mr. Maddox-In my judgment,this amendment if adopted, would put the railroads and the people in a much worse condition than they Were before. I dId not intend, at this stage of the question, to make an argument on the right of appeal but I presume it mi$ht as well be done now. I think under 'the Tilley case, as deeided by justice Woods, we now have the right of appeal. In fact the Oommissioners say that is so. But this statute is so surrounded by penalties that if a railroad should slip up it would ruin it. For that reason they can't appeal. Now, Mr. President, the amendment of the gentleman proposes to retain the law as it is now. Precisely that. No more and no less. The railroads now make their own rates and. as I understand it, -or in other words, they are submitted to the Railroad Commission just as he proposes by the amendment. Mr. McBride-Does the Sen!ttor state that the Rail~oad Oorporations have the rate-making power now, under the present law? Mr. Maddox-Yes, sir; that is just as you propos<.l to make in' that amendment. !Ir. McBride-Then why provide by your bill tor giving them the rate-making power? Doesn't the first section provide for that? Mr'. Maddox-It certainly does, but it doesn't leave it for the Oommission to revise without some one makes complaint. It has already

12
been asserted that you cannot find instances where the cases will be raised, more than one or two in a year, and there are only one or two cases in the Supreme Court where the people have-complained. It has never been a complaint of rates but of discrimination between towns. This was brought out by the constitutional convention. That has always been the trouble in Georgia. Under this bill we provide t~at the Commissioners shall make rules and regulations which will prevent these railroads from discriminating against these parties. This is ~x actly what was in the minds of the members of the constitutional convention.
Mr. McBride-The Senator does not understand that my amendment strikes out this provision of the bilL
Mr. Maddox-I understand that you leave it back to the Railroad Commission just where it has been, between the railroad and the Commission. The people are not affected by it, and they do not complain. They are not makiug any complaints against the railroads and the railroads none against them. It is merely the same old war between the 'railroads and the Commission, that's where you leave it.
Mr. McBride-If my amendment is adopted will it not leave the bill where the Senators argued for it so strongly on yesterday? That is providing for an appeal from the decision of the Commission.
Mr. Maddox-That is true. But why do you want the Railroad Commission to revise these rates, when the railroads can revise them to suit the communities much better, and for the people so much better than the Railroad Commission have done it? And if the p~ople of Georgia are satisfied, why interject the Commission into it? The people of this State are not complaining. We have the history here, since the (Jommission has been established, and the questions between the people and the roads is discrimination, and not the rate making power. We leave that to the railroad. We merely want to keep the railroads from dis-eriminating in favor of one point and against another. That is the end we have in view, and your amendment puts it back to the same place where it was before. You leave every thing to the Commissioners. The railroads make a schedule of rates, hand it to the Commissioners; the Commissioners take out from their desk the old rates and say: "Here are your rates." Here is the same war going on between the Oommission and the Railroads, and not a single person complaining; and who ever heard of making a court or a commission a party to appeal to a higher court? It is a war between the Railroad and- the Commission, and that is just what we want to get out of this question.
Mr. McBride-I will ask you in litigation heretofore, who has been the opposing party, the people or the complainant?
Mr. Maddox-The Commission has been mainly, I think. Mr. McBride-Then it is not a very remarkable proposition for me to say th~t the Oommissioners may be a party here! Mr. Maddox~Theonly question that has been raised by the Commission is to test the constitutionality of this act. If this case had been on

13
the right of appeal it would have gone down under the decision of Justice Woods, and the Commissioners and the attorney who represented the Commission before the court. argued that this law didn't deprive the people of the State, nor the railroads, of the right of appeal. I will read . you what they say, and the briefs of the attorneys who made the arguments for the COmmission when they submitted the question to the courts. In the third annual report of the Railroad Commission they s~id they were Masters in Chancery. That is what we want to make them now. In their report they say: "The action of the Commission is a well considered report, not a judgment. It prepares cases for trial, but does not try them finally. Upon a proper case made, their action (inoperative unless sustained by the court) can be taken from one court to another in due order; to the Supreme Court of the State or the Supreme Court of the United States." This was after the Tilley case. In this report they admit that cases can be carried to the courts. They say further, "the corporation of the Commission and its duty as to rates are really those of a master in Chancery appQinted by the Legislature instead of the courts, and constituted with such powers and limitation of powers as to furnish it with the best opportunities of comprehensive and . general views to be reported to both the Legislature and the courts. How inadequate is a session of forty days in two years with numerous other duties to .the performance of such a work." Further on I quote from the brief of Mynatt & Howell. They say that "tl).e fixing of rates under the act of 1879 is merely a ministerial act done under the authority of law." On one side of this case it is argued that it is unconstitutional to take away from the railroads their right of appeal to a jury. The Railroad Commis~ion, in their report, tell you it would be unconstitutional to appeal to a jury. Again, it is urged that the act of October 14, 1879, is unconstitutional, because the schedule of rates fixed by the Commission is to be deemed and taken in all the courts of the State as sufficient evidence that the rates therein fixed are just and reasonable rates of charges for the transportation of passengers and freights.
It is strangely contended t~at this takes away the right of trial by jury. It makes a rule of evidence. But instead iJf taking the matter from the jury, this rule expressly refers it to the jury. Greenleaf says, at section 2 of volume 1: By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind beyond reasonable doubt. Questions respecting'the competency and admissibility of evidence are entirely distinct from those which respect its sufficiency or effect, the former being exclusively within the province of the Court, the Hitter belonging exclusively to the jury. Code 3748. It is common for the Legislature to fix the character of evidence. It makes the report of an auditor prima facie evidence. It makes the return of the sheriff conclusive evidence."
Let us go on a little further. " Does it not substitute for the verdict of a jury the whim or wHl of

14
three men ex parte?" " We answer no. The act of 1879 expressly refers the whole matter to a jury. By the provisions of that act not a dollar can be taken from the .railroad company except upon the 'verdict of a jury." Now, since this brief offered by'the attorneys in the case, it is claimed that thelaw is unconstitution.al because the declaring of this schedule of rates. by the Commissioners, held and taken in all the courts as sufficient evidence that the rates.fixed are just and reasonable, deprives the railroads of)~~e constitutional right to a trial by jury." In this the Legislature has ex.lircised the power prescribing the nature of the effect of evidence, and it has done nothing more. N ow mark it: "Even in criminal cases the cOllrts declared that certain acts proven shall be evidence of guilt." For instance,in section 3082 of the United States Revised Statutes, it is provided that whenever, on an indictment for smuggling the defendant is shown to be in possession of smuggled goods, such possession shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize a conviction, unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury. The statute books are full of such acts, but it has never considered that this impairs the right. of trial by jury. But even if this provision of the act under consideration were unconstitutional it would render impel'ative the other sections of the statute from which this provision can be easily removed, and yet leave the main object and purpose of the law unimpaired."
Now what was.decided in that case? The claim was there made by the parties defending the Commission that when they regulated and said the rates were just and reasonable, it would go before the courts of the country as prima facie evidence, and that is all this decision meant. The Oourt held that that was all there was in this act. Now I read you the recommendations of the Commission soon after this decision was rendered. From pride of opinion, or other fault, an error of judgment is not easily cured in those who make one, and so an appeal to some outside tribunal is usually the safest mode of securing a fair hearing. Such an appeal is that from a Superior to the Supreme Court.
The parties now are not without an appeal. If any doubt of this right of appeal ever existed, it has been settled by the Tilley case, and by what has been read you under that decision. The remedy, so far as the citizen is concerned, is far better than it was prior to 1879. The remedy of the railroad men, and of the citizens, is far better than it was, but it is capable of ,improvement, and should be perfected as far as possible; but under existing laws railroads cannot appeal without subjecting themselves to two great penalties, as laid down by that statute. 'Gentlemen, we have got the report of the Commissioners .who suggest the very remedy we are asking for, who say it is a constitutional remedy, that it is a right of these railroads. It is the very thing we are asking for. Let us go a little further on. Reading from their ninth semi-annual report: " We have. always thought that parties claimirtg to be injured by a ruling of the Oommission, might, under the law as it now stands, have a remedy in the courts. But this remedy, as the law

15
now stands, is not easily available. Hence we have favored, and still favor, such a change in the law as would authorize a direct appeal to the courts from the decisions of the Commission. But any law authorizing such change should be so guarded in its provisions as not to impaIr the usefulness of the Commission to the public. While a complaining party ought to have the right of 'appeal, he should not be left at liberty to indefinitely suspend the action of the Commission by a frivolous and wanton exercise of that right. Persons familiar 'with the practice of our courts know how easily cases may' be continued from term to term, and how frequently.such continuallces result in gross injustice."
This bill was framed exactly in conformity with the report of the commission and the message of the Governor of the State of Georgia, and with the protection that p~ople ought to have. Thi~ bill provides that the decision of the commissioners shall ()perate as a supersedeas, and this is just exactly what they ask for, and it meets the approbation of the GoverRor imd should have the approval of this Senate. But I cannot give my approval to such amendments as that offered by the gentleman from the Thirty Eighth.
Mr. Smith-l will ask the gentleman to read the eleventh semirannual report to show what a change has come over the "spirit of the dreams" of the commission.
Mr. Maddox-N ow, Mr. President, it does seem to me, as the Senator has well suggested. that spirit has c~me over the dreams of the railroad commission that they should radically change the very thing they have been insisting on from time to time. The railroad commission came here last winter and imisted on the right of appeal by the report, but when the time comes and a bill is framed to meet their wishes, they come in their next .report and say it is unconstitutional and ought not to be done. Like myoId friend Harrison in the House, they go behind the Constitution when you attempt to regulate their power. They recommend repeatedly some modification, and as soon as the Legislature proposes to do something they turn around and plant themselves upon the Constitution like some men who want to avoid the responsibility and dodge the question before the people. This is a strange proposition to me. We have followed the recommendations of the commissioners and the r~commendations of the Governor exactly in this bill, and I believe we have met the true will and wishes of the people of Georgia; then, for the life of me, I don't see why it should now be loaded down with amendments so that it takes us back exactly to the same place from where we started.
Mr. Smith-In the report I just sent to you they now claim the Legislature cannot repeal the law establishing the commission.
Mr. Maddox-Oh, yes, I think they have got above tbe Legislature, according to that report, and the created is greater than the creator. They have absolutely exceeded the power of the Legislature, and they argue that we cannot even correct or change or modify.
After motion of Mr. Rankin to reconsider the action of the Senate on

16
the McBride amendment, Mr. Maddox said, I hope that motion will not be adopted, because I consider the amendment of the Senator from the Thirty-Eighth utterly impracticable. I am justified in saying what I do by the recommendation of the Railroad commission itself. It was said by the gentleman on yesterday that his amendment had not been discussed. I will agree with him, to a certain extent. It had been discussed by one or two of us to the very best of our ability, though he might not have thought so. What is the amendment of Mr. McBride that you want to reconsider and what does it do? It simply does this. If it is passed and put upon this measure it absolutely does away with all the recommendations of the Oommission, and 80 far as any change is concerned it does not amount to a bauble, I will tell you. This amendment provides this. That the Railroads may make their rates for freight, and submit them to the Railroad Oommission to revise and then what? The gentleman, in glo'wing terms, talks about an appeal. Suppose the Railroads are dissatisfied, what does it amount to? That is just exactly what the Railroad Oommission does now. The Railroads make their freight rates. In other words, their freight rates are submitted to the Oommission which sits down and makes a rate after looking over the general rates and strikes out and puts in and makes the rates for the State of Georgia. That is just exactly what they do now.
Suppose that under this amendment the Railroads are dissatisfied with what they consider to be unfair treatment on the part of the Railroad Oommission, -then he says appeal. What are the Railroads to appeal from? Decision has been rendered by the Oommission, there is no complaint and there is no party in Oourt. The Oommission says that they shall not be made a party themselves because they are a tribunal, notwithstanding that you say tl,J.at they are a Legislative body.
They say in their report that they are not to be made a party in this transaction.
Mr. McBride-I want to ask you, if in the Tilley case to which you have alluded so often, if the Oommission has not made a party defendant?
Mr. Maddox-Now, Mr. President; the gentleman goes exactly on the very idea that they have discussed the Tilley case in this whole question, that the constitutionality of the question was raised there !md their rights as a constitutional body was taken into consideration.
These questions of right and wrong were not taken into consideration.
Mr. McBride-Is that without authority of special statute? Mr. Maddox-Yes sir.
Mr. McBride-Do you deny that they can be made a party complainant or defendant by statute?
Mr. Maddox-I accept the gentleman's suggestion. Even admit that to be so, wouldn't it put the railroads in ten times worse condition? Here is the court that is made a party in court contending against the railroads, such unfair legislation as that is what you are leading to. You

17
make the court a defendant in court. The court, in other words, is to determine the rights of the court. Whoever heard of that?
Mr. Rankin-Does he not know that the JUEtices of the Peace have to answer a certiorari?
Mr. Maddox-I heard further that if the plaintiff was dissatisfied he could traverse the answer and appeal to the verdict of his countrymen to say whether he had reeeived justice or not. Give us that right and we will go with you now. They don't propose to do anything of the kind. Let us see what the Railroad Commission says. The proposition is that the railroads make the rates which are submitted to the Commission to revise them, then if anybody is dissatisfied they can appeal. Suppose nobody makes a complaint. They had just as well appeal from the Code of Gem-gia as for the Commission to do so. It is absolutely absurd. An appeal from the whole Code of Georgia would be an analog<'lUS case.
Mr. Rankin-I would like to know which would be the greater difficulty, an appeal from the rates fixed by the Commission by the person dissatisfied, or the appeal proposed by you? If a community or individuals who are dissatisfied with the rate fixed by the road. appeals under your provision, would that fix a rate over the roads in the State. or would it be a final decision in the case appealed?
Mr, Maddox-It most certainly would on that class. The railroads have thirty or forty classes, and such a decision would be taken into consideration as the ratio of freight on other roads.
Mr. Rankin-Would that be fair to the railroads? Are not some allowed to charge higher rates than others? Would the decision of the court bind all the railroads to the same rates?
Mr. Maddox-I say in the same ratio as to the lates of other roads. Mr. Rankin-Does your appeal provide for a ratio? Mr. Maddox-No, sir; but the courts do not provide for it, either. The gentlemen stand here and talk about the immense litigation that is going to result, and say that we must save the country, and yet, in the whole history of the Railroad Commission, we have but four or five cases. ~Ir. McBride-I understand that the Senator criticises the proposition requiring the railroads to appeal from the whole schedule as being an extraordinary one. Mr. Maddox-'--Yes, sir, that is my opinion. Mr. McBride-Now, I ask, if it occurs to the Senator to be any less extraordinary to require the people who may want to complain to appeal to the Commis8ion on a whole schedule of rates? Mr. Maddox-It don't require anything of the sort. There is no such thing in the bill. Mr. McBride-Wouldn't the people be as likely to appeal from a whole schedule of rates, as the railroads to appeal from a whole schedule made by the railroads? Mr. Maddox-Either way is to be avoided under this bill. An anal-
2

18
ogous case to yours is that some citizen might appeal from the whole Code of Georgia and say, gentlemen, this Code ought to be repealed. That is just exactly what you ask the railroads to do under this amendment. Suppose the railroads or some citizen should be dissatisfied, you say they must appeal to the Commission, although the Oommissionhave already fixed the rates and decided what they think is correct, yet if the railroads are dissatisfied they must go back to the sa~e body and appeal. What do the Commissioners say the gentlemen will stand by them. It is true that the Oommission itself is always open for a new trial, and that without formality, but aside altogether from pride of opinion or other fault, an error of judgment is not easily cured in those who make it, and so an appeal to some outside tribunal is usually the safest mode of securing a fair rehearing. That is the answer of the Commission and tlie answer to your argument. Is it not a full one? The idea of either party going to a Railroad Commission that has made rates which it considers just and fair and expecting them to revise their own decision, "Or if they do not do so then appeal from nobody. I do say that that is absurd. Who would expect them to undo their work? They do not expect it themselves. I have given you their answer. Under this bill the railroads make their rates, and if anybody is dissatisfied he makes his case out to the Commission, the Commission has not passed upon the question, they hav~had nothing to do with it before, they are an impartial tribunal.
Mr. McBride-Doesn't my amendment provide in express terms that the Commission shall not pass in judgment upon the rates submitted until notice has been given and the railroads have been heard?
Mr. Maddox-I suppose it does. Wouldn't the people be bound under the same rule? You say notice is given to all parties of twenty or thirty days and then the judgment of the court is rendered. Suppose that some merchant wants to appeal from that, and is dissatisfied he is fastened by the judgment of the court under your amendment.
The Senator from the Forty-third says that this bill absolutely abolishes the Commission. Mr. President,we don't propose to do anything of the sort, neither do I favor it.
Mr. Rankin-I didn't say that it would abolish it. I said that it would be better to abolish it than to adopt that substitute.
Mr. Maddox-I accept the amendment. I repeat that the origin of this whole legislation was to prescribe rules and, regulations to prevent discrhnination which has been the ruin of Georgia's interior towns, building up the cities to the disadvantage of other localities. It is to prevent this discrimination in local rates of freight that the Oommission ought to s'tand and we leave it there in the bill. The Commission ought to be here to prev~nt discriminations, but I do say, Mr. President, that they ought not to be here to be In continual warfare with the rqads. The people are making no complaint about it, but it is merely a warfare betweeu the Commission and the railroads. I did not want to allude to this question. I hoped that I might not ever have to do it, but I will

19
have to call your attention to a certain matter in justice to myself. The gentleman talks about ex parte proceedings, and asks us to stand here as ft jury and try this case. And he asks where is the evidence that there is a demand for a change I.will show you where it is. Mr. President; the act under which this Railroad Commission is now acting says this: "That it shall be the duty of the Commissioners herein provided for to make ft semi-annual report to the Governor, and to recommend from time to time such legislation as they may deem advisable under the provisions Df this act." Mr: President, the gentleman asks for the evidence. Under this act didn't the Railroad Commission from time to time recommend the right of appeal. The highest authority that we can have upon this question is laid down in the statutes, and we have it also from the Commission themselves.
Mr. Jordan-Do I understand the gentleman to commit himself to the proposition that the recommendation of anybody is evidence to this Legislature or any other tribunal? I s it not necessary to present facts rathr than the conclusions of some man's mind?
Mr. Maddox-I do say that It is the very highest kind of evidence under this statute, because it provides that these people after having experience, shall make a recommendation. It is not put upon their bare rcommendation, but they state the fact in their report why their recommendation should be adopted. I didn't want to allude to this question. I had hoped that we might discuss it upon a high basis without alluding personally to anybody, but it has been forced upon us, but it we have got to do it we will do it and mect it like a man. We have taken the evidence from the Railroad Commission, we have framed the appeal exactly in accordance with their recommendations, with the exception of the rate making power. Where did the recommendation to make the rates come from? It came from the highest authority in the State of Georgia, the Governor in his message to this General Assembly. He is a gentleman who has as much experience in the matter as the Railroad Commission, because he introduced the bill and carried it through this General Assembly. He has seen its workings from time to time. What higher evidence do you want than that? We have the evidence of the gentlemen who drew this bill and brought it here. All thesc men say that the Commission has gone far beyond the mark and assumed an authority that they never had the remotest idea or dreamed that they would undertake. These are the authorities upon which we
have introduced this bill. Last De~ember when we adjourned, the Com-
mission recommended that these roads should have the right of appeal. Upon the evidence of the Governor, upon the evidence of the Railroad Commission, upon the evidence of the railroads this bill was brought before the Senate and the General Assembly, and when we got ready to meet. them and accept their proposition how are we met? ,By their semiannual report before we had time to make our report and introduce this bill, and before we had the slightest idea what that report or recommendation would be, one of the Oommissioners took this little thing over

20
to the Constitution, anticipating us. I refer to Mr. Trammel himself, and I ask the Clerk to read this:
The Clerk read an article appearing in the Atlanta Constitution of July 14th, taken from the N rw Orleans Picayune, Containing these paragraphs:
"The Legislature is to meet in Atlanta in a few days, and we shall soon see exactly how.far the railroad magnates have contrived to stock the guards in the dangerous game which they are playing against the
people. * *
"The report of the Committee of the Legislature which has been investigating the operation of the Commission law, will probably be rendered very soon, and it will be read with interest, in order to discover whether the railroads have captured the Investigating Committee, and made the first point in their game."
Mr. Rankin-Do I understand the gentleman to say the author of that article is one of the Railroad Commission?
Mr. Maddox-I say that Mr. Newton Trammel carried that to the Constitution and had it published.
Mr. Rankin-Isn't it from a New Orleans paper and quoted from it? Mr. Maddox-I believe it was but that don't make a bit of difference, it suited the occasion. Here we find one of this high court that is to decide upon the important questions in Georgia, before even the Committee knows what report it will make taking this document and publishing it to anticipate their action before he even knows whether the Railroad Committee has been" captured" or not. This article evidently means to say that if the Committee had determination enough to report that the Commission ought to be modified thus following their own recommendation then the Committee is "captured." They wanted that to go to the country. They didn't know their Committee. I for one don't propose to be bulldosed by such little newspaper articles. It just shows Senators and Represenatives where this thing has gone. It is narrowed down to a fight between the Railroad Commission and the Railroads. The Commission are fighting for power and are not going to release it even though they have recommended appeals from time to time. All the time heretofore they have recommended in their reports the right of appeal, 'We took their evidence and the evidence of the Governor of the State of Georgia, we took the evidence of the Rail-roads, we went into the whole matter. When we framed the bill they changed their minds in the interim and in order to drive us from our purpose they carried this unsigned and I might say cowardly shot from behind a tree taken from some other paper and carried over there to have it published just like a thousand other little articles that are being circulated around the counj;ry and not a man to sign his name to them. We take the evidence of the RaIlroad Commission itself, and yet when we made this investigation the gentleman said it was ex parte. Every gentleman that was on that Railroad Comlllittee will substantiate what I say, This impartial juror who discussed this question the
/

21

other day only gave the Railroad Commission's side of the. case. The

question was then which one of you are right. We determined in that

committee and the other members will bear me out to ascertain if pos-

sible who was correct and whether or not .the Railroads did need relief.

Then what was done. We were invited by the 'Railroads to inspect

their roads. We invited the Railroad Commission to go with us, we

said to them, you come and go with this Oommittee and let us take a

plain, open account of the whole business, and let us look and see who

is right. What was the result? The Railroad Commission refused to

go. We went alone, and now it is said that the investigation was ex

parte. Why, we had the Railroad Commission here before us. When

I called their attention to the Tilley case the other day and called my

friend Allen's attention to the fact that he had read only such portions

of the case as elucidated his side of the case, when he was discussing the

Constitutionality of the right of appeal, I called his attention to the di-

rect section where they met that question,and he said he would come

to it, but he has never come to it yet, although he wanted us to look at

both sides of this case like impartial jurors.

In the 6th section of the Tilley case the railroads made this case that

the right of appeal had been taken away from them, and therefore the

act was unconstitutional. The 6th section says, it is claimed that the

law is unconstitutional because by declaring that the schedules of rates

established by the Commissioners shall be held and taken in all the

courts as sufficient evidence that the rates fix<:d are just and reasonable,

it deprives the railroad companies of their constitutional right to a trial

by jury.

'

., In this provision the Legislature has exercised the power exercised

by all the Legislatures, both Federal and State, of prescribing'the effect

of evidence, and it has done nothing more. Even in criminal cases

Congress has declared that certain facts proven shall be evidence of

guilt. For instance. in section 3082 of ,the United States revised stat-

utes it is provided that whenever on an indictment for smuggling the

defendant is shown to be in possession of smuggled goods such posses-

sion shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize a conviction, un-

less the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the

jury.. The statute books are full of such acts but it has never been con-

sidered that thIS impairs the right of trial by jury." This is the deci-

sion in the Tilley case. Wh~n I called their attention to this they

dodged it and never yet have read it to the Senate. There is the ques-

tion made in that case and decided by the court.

Now, Mr. President, the gentleman from the Twenty-Fifth says that

he has investigated this question to see if any legislation is needed upon
this question, and he says that we ought to regard ourselves as impartial

juror,; and pass upon the facts in the case. Now, Mr. President, if we were

jurors and intend to pass upon all the facts in this question, when this case

was made by the Railroad Commission, and when Justice Woods said yeu

arp not deprived of the right of trial by jury, all this was prima facie

22
evidence, and why did not the impartial juror himself read that? Now, Mr. President, the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth says further: "I will call your attention to the fact that under the present Commission of Georgia we have no right to sue in the common law courts for over charges. Here conies the statute that regulates this question and it says that the Commissioners shall say what is just and reasonable to charge. You have the statute regulating this question and you cannot go into the common law remedies. The railroads fix the rates they will . charge from time to time as the circumstance may require. They are the judges of the circumstances and you cannot sue in the comnion law courts." I ask you, gentlemen, and you will all remember it, that if you were not granted the right of appeal under the common law. He held that this case repealed all the common law remedies. On the contrary the Commission act expresoly says that all the powers that are now conferred upon the people under the common law are not repealed by this act. Yet the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth would have you believe to the contrary. I would be glad if the gentleman would find the act that I may read it. The common law so far as the right to sue for extortion and things of that sort stands intact. The act says so itself.' The gentleman would have you believe that in violation of the Constitution the railroads of this State had been captured ltnd monopolized, and that competition was absolutely prevented.
Mr. Cabaniss-l will read the statute, 719 K, as to common law remedy.
Mr. Mltddox-Somc of the gentlemen in the opposition have seen fit to hold a different view on the sUbject of the common law remedy from that of the Senator of the Twenty-Fifth; and, according to their argument, he was mistaken. The statute under which this Commiosion is acting to-day, says that all contracts and agreements between railroad companies doing business in' this State, as to the rates of freight and passenger tariff, shall be submitted to said Commissioners for inspection and correction, that it may be seen whether they arc in violation of the law or the rules and regulations of said Commission. Upon the very idea that he was talking about that these great monopolies had absolutely captured all the railroads in Georgia, and prevented competition, I say that his error is clearly shown in the statute. If the circurp.stances are as he states, why don't the Commission, if they are' carrying out the law, prevent it? They have the power t<9 have ail contracts submitted to them, and if such violation is going on, it is their duty to prevent it. He would have you believe that they haven't done it. Further on I understood the gentleman to say that the reason that the railroads were n~aking more money was on account of competition.
Mr. Jordan.-The gentleman entirely misapprehends my argument. I said that this Senate was not advised why it was that a dividend was not declared by these roads. Whether it was that the tal"iffadjusted by the Commission was insufficient to yield an income which would give a return on the investment, or whether it 'grew out of the fact of Ull-

23
profitable investments in other roads, when that very investment was forbidden by the law. In case of the West Point Road, the stock was recapitalized double, and a guarantee made to pay six per cent. on it. I ask the question whether this Senate was advised whether or not that was a profitable investment to the road operating it? I understand that it has not been very profitable. 1 don't know whether this is true or not. I said that this Senate was unadv4sed. I argued further that we were unadvIsed as to what. influence the trades they had made acquiring property in South Carolina and Alabama had upon their business, and whether the loss resulting from those trades were levIed upon the legitimate business of the corpo~ation.
Mr. Maddox-I don't desire to misquote the gentleman. I am very certain of one thing that the gentleman in his argument said the reason that some roads hadn't made so much money was on account of competition.
Mr. Allen-I said one of the trouble was this pooling business, and one of the troubles not mentioned by them was competition.
Mr. Maddox-The Senator takes the ground that it is monopoly, and then that the trouble ari,es from competition. Do you know that under this 'pooling system some of your roads are enabled to live to-day, and without it they would die; that they get a share of the earnings of other roads is the reason that they can run. I ask the gentleman if he desires us to stand here as impartial jurors, and if he wanted us to get at all the facts, why didn't he tell us how many of these little roads throughout the State could not live and are losing money day by day, and some of them even are standing before this General Assembly at this time asking for relief that they may develop the resources of N o~th East Georgia, if it were not for this very pooling system. The Central Railroad is not the only railroad in Georgia. We have other roa~s to look after, and especially the weak ones. If the ):Jig ones are making money, wehad better take care of the little ones. There is no reason why they should be choked by the Railroad Commission. Another thing he stated: That the rates that the RailroadUommission established were exactly the rates of the W. & A. Railroad, or just a shade above, so that they would have no right to complain. That they didn't care to antagonize that road. Just think-of it: Here are numbers of roads in the State of Georgia struggling for existence, and they are put upon eq~ality 1Vith this great monopoly, the greatest money-making institution in the Union. Dr. Felton said the other day, and showed from statistics that had been furnished him, that three of the shareholders in that. railroad make more money than the whole of the Central corporation.' Yet some of the weaker roads are compelled to carry freights at the same rates as the W. & A. Road, whose rates are the lowest, and who are getting rich day by day, arid who have thousands of dollars in their pockets that belong to the people, yet they assume that roads who are struggling for existence must come ~o the same level, and then they talk about equality and right. I was told the

24
other day by one of the stockholders of the Kingston & Rome Railroad that they absolutely made nothing under the rules and regulations of the Commission. Various other roads are in the same position. Why not take the whole evidence and decide this question? Another thing thing he spoke of was regarding the immense amount of railroads that are being built in Georgia. As he said some six hundred .miles. How much of this was built in the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia swindle that was never built to make money. That is broke to-daythat is in the hands of a Receiver-that is cutting rates and robbing the rest of the railroads-that was built as a mere matter of speculation that broke one of the most charitable of men-a man to whom Georgia owes her gratitude. I refer to Mr. Seney. This very swindle broke him. That could not raise money by mortgage, by traffic or otherwise to pay the interest on their bonds. That is one of the immense structures that has been built. Then further, he told us about the great investment in the Brunswick and Albany Railroad. Why didn't he tell yon how much it cost the people of Georgia to get that investment in here, and how much we lost by it? In other words, we give a hundred dollars for a horse. We say to Northern capital if you will come here and give us fifty dollars we will give it to you. This investment came here by an immense sacrifice by the people of the State, not because ofothe Railroad Commission:
Mr. Thornton~I understand that the people of Georgia lost nothing by that affair in .the Brunswick and Albany Road, that its bonds were repudiated.
Mr. Maddox-If they didn't pay anything then there was nothing lost. When these gentlemen came here and invested one or two millions in this road they say that it is a great influx by reason of a Railroad Oommission. There were other Railroads in Georgia by which the people lost millions of dollars. I have had to.go into 'this question at some length in order to reach this question as to whether we should. adopt this amendment. The Senator frem the Twenty-Fourth discussed a most remarkable proposition that the Railroads are built and run as a matter of duty, that they are not expected to. make money. He sa ys this, that when they make seven per cent., that they are absolutely extracting the earnings of the people, and they ought not to do it. Yet the banks right here in the city make a hundred per cent. in many instances. Why doesen't ~ create a commission 'to regulate them? They are not extorting anything from the pe9ple..
Mr. Thornton-The gentleman is mistaken when he says that such an argument was made by the Senator from the Twenty"Fourth.
Mr. Maddox-Excuse me, I meant the Senator frqm the TwentyEighth. What does the gentleman base that idea upon, Senators? Upon the very idea. that. these Railroads. are incorporated and granted
franchises 9Y the State you grant the banks the .very same. thing and
you say that they shall not charge over eight percent. That anything over that is usury. How many of you made twelve, fifteen and twenty

25
per cent'! Well, they say you can't collect a debt by law. The banks do worse than that. They say to a man, that whenever you fail to pay the per cent. and your debt that we have a pooling system and you will be blackmailed and you are outside. Why don't the gentleman regulate them, they are the people who are charging you usury ten and twelve per cent. Isn't this extorting the earnings of the people? It is a prejudice, that is opposed to having the Railroads make anything. That very man if he has no road would be the strongest one- to urge the building of a road to his town.
As soon as it is built and goes to work then he turns around and tries to cut its throat. It is not fair or just. You ought to rise above this prejudice. Because you do not simply stand here as individuals but as the ,representatives of the people to enact laws that are wise and just. Now,Mr. President, another proposition. What does the Railroad Commission allow as to the regulations of freights? You say that the idea is that the Railroad Commission shall regulate rreights so that the railroads shall not make more than seven per cent. That is. the idea, that they shall not make more than seven per cent. The State puts three men in -charge of the railroads,of Georgia and makes a maximum rate in order to prevent them from making more than seven per cent. The State takes charge of the mattGr. When you hire a clerk and put upon him certain duties don't you hold him responsible for his actions '! Was it ever the idea of the General Assembly that we should put men in power, that we should establish a Railroad Commis,sion to be governed by other principles than this. In short, that they are not to be responsible if the income of the road goes below seven per cent. In such a case dops the State make up the deficit? If you guarantee them a rate why not? Why, sir, the argument is that if a firm makes seven per cent. it is doing well enough. No doubt there are a great many who can mll'ke' more. The merchant or the farmer is allowed to take advantage of the season and to do the best he can, but you don't allow the railroads to do anything of the kind, on the contrary you say to them if you have a good season we will hold you down to the maximum, and in a bad season if you lose thousands and thousands of dollars nOl a dollar does the State propose to recompense you. Is it fair or just to make any such rules .thatwill drive these people into bankruptcy 'I This is a. plain proposition. Men have tried to cloud it in your minds by technical points and constitutional objections. It ,is a plain question. If the Commission is to take charge and reduce this rate to seven per cent. and will not allow them to take advantage of the prosperous seasons, ought not ,the State make upthe losses when the dark days come on? How are, thGy to keep up? The railroads are just like everybody else. They ha.ve their good seasons and their bad seasons. Tell me Senators that such action as this won't drive money and property out of the State. The Uommissionhas said we have saved enough out.of the railroads to pay the taxes of the State for one year; ,that is their own argument. Senators, is it fair, is it right, is it just and according to the

26

principles of our grand old State? Is it just to bring these people-'-

and you are everyone trying to build a railroad to your own 'place-

is it just to say to the men who have been induced to build the roads

that we will regulate you until you have to' go into bankruptcy. The

gentleman argues that the Central Railroad 'is making money. Go to

the numerous other little railroads in the State that are not making any-

thing.. You have induced them to come into your country, and yet you

must cut their throat. In any event not allow them over seven per

cent., and they may go as far below that as they please. Is that right?

Ought not these railroads to be allowed to make their own rates and let

the people along "the line make complaint when they are unjust or

unfair?

1\'11'. J ordan_I would like to know of the Senator if he doesn't be-

lieve that in establishing the Railroad Commission it was sought to give

it elasticity in order that it might adapt itself to the changed conditions

of the country, so that just and reasonable return would be secured to

the investors in off years, as well as good years? Was that not the

object of the Legielature?

Mr. Maddox-I think it was, to a certain extent, though I am justi-

fied in saying that the authors of that bill, the men who voted for it,

now say, absolutely and unconditionally, that the Commission have

transcended any authority that they ever dreamed of giving them.

Mr. Jordan-If it is true that the statute was intended to have that

elasticity, and secure this .proper return as well one year liS another,

then is not the gentleman's argument or objections applicable rather to

the personale of the Commission than to the propriety of the law? In

other words, if the law was administered in the spirit it was intended,

could there be cause for c0mplaint on the part of the railroads?

Mr. Maddox-,--We fully agree; and that is the.very reason the law

ought to be changed.



Mr. Jordan-Then I submit to the Senator that if that be his position

doesn't it lead still further to the idea that instead of repealing the law

which was intended to accomplish good, when properly administered,

that the State stands pledged to so alter the personale of the Commis-

sion so as to secure the object aimed at?

Mr. Maddox-I am, Mr. President, very glad that the gentleman of-

fers this suggestion, because he is coming right now to the milk in the

cocoanut. I agree with him, except in one thing, arid tliat is this:

What guarantee have we that the next man who is put in, won't be

just like this one is?

Mr. Jordan-Come back to the Legislature and we will turn him out.

Mr. Maddox-But what is going to become of the railroads in four or

five years? This law ought to provide for justice to the railroads, and

the people ought to put it out of the power of anyone to oppress and

down trod them. It ought to be put beyond that elasticity which is

spoken of. It ought to be made firm. It ought to be made to speak'

the truth; that is, that no one can transgress the law. We ought to

27
make the law so plain that these Commissioners could not transcend their. authority. That is the reason why I am contending for the ratemaking power.
}Ir. Smith~Is it possible that this Commission as it is constituted might, at a future day, be against the people?
Mr. :Maddox.-Certainly, we have discussed that question, I thank you for the suggestion. It may be as I suggested the other day. I did not say, as the gentlemen then misunderstood me, that it would be done, but I said that it was possible that the railroads might capture the Com-
mis~ion.
}fr. Rankin- Wouldn't it then be infinitely better if we have so little confidence in human nature and the possibility of what the Commission might do. to abolish it entirely?
Mr. :Uaddox-No sir, I don't think so at all. I tell you in the way of a side remark, when you have got a Supreme Court standing over you, when you have not all the power vested in you, but have the high court of the country to say when you have acted right and wrong, then you won't get so far off the tra"k.
:\lr. Rankin-Would it not be possible for the railroad to capture the court, .they are but three men?
:\Ir. Madctox-Well, that is possible. :Hr, Rankin-Then why not abolish the court '/ Mr. :\faddox-N0 sir, we won't abolish the court, I reckon, but I tell you one thing, whenever any of the Judges of the 8uperior Court come here and put such articles in the paper as has been read to yo~, and when they appear as partisans in a cast), it will not be fifteen' minutes before we will have a Judge going out of here without a commission. We are not afraid of the courts. There won't be any trouble about that. Mr. Allen-Under the present law, can't you dismount a Oommissioner as quick as you can dismount a Judge of the Superior Court ? Mr. Maddox-That is another absurd idea. What authority has the Governor under the Constitution? You have just made the argument that the Legislative. Judicial and Executive DIJpartments are separate and distinct. What right has the Governor to try a case except for malfea;;anae in office? Mr. Rankin-'You have just stated t"at if a Superior COUl" Jndge printed such articles you would turn him out in fifteen minutes. Is it not competent for the Governor to recommend a Commissioner's removal, and would not the Governer act promptly? Is there not authority conferred on us by the statute for the impeachment of the Commission? Mr. Maddox-We have got it for the Judges but not for the Oommission. :Mr. Ran kin-Wouldn't the Governor act promptly if charges were made? Mr: :Maddox~TheGovernor generally follows the recommendations of the General Assembly when they have the auth'ority, but if they have

28

not the ~uthority he p~ys no more attention than he would to any other

citizen.

:Nlr. Ranldn-Does'nt the statute give the Governor the rIght to re-

move him without recommendation '?

Mr. Maddox-Please read the article.

Mr. Rankin-I desire to ask one ,other question. If the Legislature

has no authority, why is it that the courts hold that the right of the

railroads to appeal to the Legislature is intact '?

Mr. Maddox-Thnt is just what we are doing right now.

Mr. Rankin-'rhen if they appeal and show good ground would'nt the

Legislature act promptly, and has'nt it the authority to.do so'?

'

Mr. Maddox-They have not authority to do anything of the sort.

I will read the section: "Any Commissioner may be suspended from office

by order of the Governor, who shall report the fact of such suspension

and the reason therefor to the next General Assembly, and if a majority

of each branch of the General Assembly declare that such Commissioner

shall be removed from office, his term of office shall expire.

Mr. Allen-Does that prescribe or limit the Governor'? Has'nt he

the unqualified power to remove him '?

Mr. Maddox-Yes, but what is the question that would come before

the Governor'? He has the right to suspend but not remove. That

doesn't oust him at all, it merely suspends him. What would be the

question that would come before the Governor'? The same question as

towhether the rates are reasonable or not. The only complaint that

would come before the Governor for their removal to relieve the Rail-

roads would be whether these rates are reasonable and just. I want to

go further on this rate-making idea, We have H great many roads to

be completed, small soads to develope the interior of our country. Un-

der the freight rates as now made by the Oommission they, cannot sup-

port themselves, The people along the lines are 'willing, to pay three

times as much as. the cities on these great' highways. It is a, great con-

venience to them. It keepo them in communication with the balance

of the world.. Many of you gentlemen who have' the. advantages of

Railroads and who desire the development of your own towns know

that it. will never be brought about by the present regulations of the

Commission for this Teason, theratemaking power ought to be, left to

the Railroads, andnochange to be attempted unless the people are dis-

satisfied. Our backwoods counties will never be developed under the

Commission. There are a great many Railroads in' Georgia represent-

ing from seve.nty-five. to. eighty-five million. of dollars. Did it ever

occur to you that there are fromfifty to sixt;ythousand people depend-

ent upon these roads according to the Commissioner's report. If they

cannot make the seen per cent. they are compelled to reduce their

running expenses. That is the advice you give them. What does it

mean'? That they mus-t rob their laborers, the poor class of pBople. It

wasabsolutelysugge,sted in one of the reports that only a tri.weekly

train should be run. In this great yankee nation talk about making it

29
impossible for 11 man to get over his Railroad only two or three days in a week, I tell you as a matter of fact, in our investigation we found that many of these Railroads under the regulations of the Commissson have been compelled to di~charge many of their laborers or cut down their wages, and I say in justice to these people, let the Railroads make their rates, and if the people are dissatisfied let them make their case before the Commissioners, then the Commissioners will be an impartial tribunal. As I have said'that there are many communities in the State that are willing to pay three times more than other communities that are more favored and it is absolutely necessary for the existence of the Railroads. Under the Commission they cannot do this and they are absolutely estopped. The gentleman in proposing a reconsider,ation of the amendment of the Senator from the Thirty-Eighth is practically asking you to throw the onus of the whole case on the Railroads. In other words, the decision of the Commission is already made, they have' already adjusted the rates and in going to it you go not to an impartial tribunal but to a court that has already made up its judgment. A party who has a complaint to make can come and sit down before a tribunal that has already made up its mind and at the same time you force the Railroads to make out their case. I say that there is neither right nor justice in that. When on the other hand the Railroads go before the Commission on an appeal, they must do so upon the whole schedule and they would be required to summons at least one-tenth of the. citizens of Georgia to show what is reasonable and just. They must appeal from the whole set of regulations and the case wouldn't be settled in five years.
Mx. Rankin-As the Senator thinks that it. is possible that the Commission may become mere tools in the hands of the railroad companies, would it not be absurd to retain the Commission, and therefore, is it not better to abolish it absolutely?
Mr. Maddox~I think not, if yuu will adopt our bill. The railroad men have no desire to abolish the Commission. Under this bill there would be no reason to do so. It will then be an impartial tribunal.
Mr. Rankin-But suppose, as the Senator said a moment ago, the Commission becomes the tool of the railroad companies, and suppose that a shipper or a consignee receives goods, the freight upon which they are disposed to complain, should they be compelled to complain to a Commission that is controlled by the railroads? Why do you want to sustain a Commission that is purchasable?
Mr. Maddox-We don't want to sustain any.such Commission. When we take this immense power away from them there will be no necessity for any such thing either by the people or the roads. Under this substitute I do not go before the Commission to appeal from a whole schedule. I go to them and make out my 'case, set it out plainly as in -court, and if the Commission is prejudiced I appeal from them to a jury of my country, and the Solicitor-General who represents the State is there to represent me, and we go from there to the highest tribunal in our State,

30
so that we are protected under this bill at all times. Under the amendment,as the gentleman proposes, we go before a tribunal that has made up its mind, we go there with our case already prejudiced. We have to make out our case while the other party sits quietly by, and, as a matter of course, we lose the case. It doesn't matter what the railroads prove, they know just what they will do, and the. Senator knows that they are but human. If they have prejudiced the case surely they wouldn't do it without evidence. When they adjust these rates they will do it advisedly, and when they have done that they will stand by it. I will saY now that when the gentleman first suggested his amendment, it seemed to be fair and just, but as soon as I analyzed it I saw it wouldn't do.
Mr. M~Bride-I want' to ask the gentleman if that amendment doesn't provide that due notice shall be served on the railroad, submitting the rate that appears to be unfair or unjust, and after ten days have expired the Commission shall hear the evidence, and therefore they will be compelled, under the terms of that amendment, not to pass 'upon what they have heretofore thought about it, but upon any new evidence that would appear upon that trial?
Mr. Maddox~I have answered that question twice, I think, sir. Mr. McBride-I think you have answered it very evasively. Mr, Maddox-Well I don't see the object of the ten days notice. You only take the position that there is nobody interested in this bill before the House except the railroads and the Railroad Commission. I take the side that the people may want to complain at some time or other, and when they are aggrieved they can come to a tribunal that has not already made up its judgment or should be allowed to do so. Mr. President I don't think this amendment ought to be adopted. I have been compelled to go into the general question in order to present my views upon this amendment, and to show that the railroads ought- to have right to make the rates of freight, and tOo all parties interested the right to have an impartial tribunal which has not already prejudged the case. We have seen the great scarecrcw introduced by various Senators that the courts will be filled wieh litigation. I believe that this will not be the case. That there will hardly be an appeal made from the Commission because it will be a fair court. Mr. Jordan-Do I understand the Senator to say that they desire an appeal because of its fairness and to secure the constitutional right. Didn't I understand you awhile ago to say that an appeal because of an overcharge on one article of freight that belongs to a particular class and the decision on that particular objeet would control the whole class? Applied to all classes A for instance. Didn't I understand you to say a moment ago that decision as to a charge on an article in that clasii would control the whole class? Mr. Maddox-As far as that railroad was concerned against which the case was brought. Mr. Jordan-Why do you say as far as the railroad was concerned?

31
Are not the people as much interested in this right of appeal as the railroads?
Mr. Maddo)(-Uertainly. Mr. Jordan-Upon what principle do you make the decision on an article in one class apply to the whole class? Mr. Maddox-I do it on the principles of justice and the law of the country. All parties have notice-just like going into an Ordinary's court. Mr. Jordan-Has there been any notice served on them? Have they been called into this court by any person whatever? Mr. Maddox-Yes, sir. they have been notified. The people as well as the railroads that the Commission will pass upon the rates upon a certain day, just as the parties interested in any court are notified to come in and file their claim. Mr. Jordan-Has any body but the parties to the record the right to come in? Mr. Maddox-I say yes. I am astonished to h;ar him ask that question. If a party petitions for a change of rate, or a new rate, it is advertised in the paper, and other parties who have any interest, may come in, file their objections on a certain day, and they become a party to the record. Mr. Jordan-I desire to ask you that if, under the provisions of this bill, for instance if an over-charge is made on a bale of cotton, and the notice served, would it be sufficient to appoint that one day entirely to the hearing of the charges on that bale of cotton; or does the bill provide that notice shall be given to all who are interested in the classes A, Band 0, and that they may come in and be heard? Mr. Maddox-I have answered that question on one or two occasions. The difficulty seems to be that the opponents of this measure do not desire to accord to these corporations the same rights and privileges that they give to other people. This bill provides that any man can go and make his case and go before an impartial court, the Uo'mmissioners, and then they may go to the Supreme Court. In other words, Justice Woods has decided that when the Oommissioners have made rates that are reasonable and just, that is taken as prima facie evidence before the jury. Under the bill we propose, there won'\ be one case out of fifty that will ever be appealed from the decision of the Commission. I see no reason why these people should not be treated as other people; I see no reason why they shonld be outlawed from the courts. I see no reason why they should not be permitted to control their property as other people do it when they do not do it to the injury of the people of the State. Mr. Tigner read a decision and asked the Senator in brief if the duty owed by the public to these corporations was not to give them a just rate of interest on their'investment after paying the expense necessary to run the business? Mr. Maddox-Provided that the State was running a railroad I would

32
think that the gentleman was correct, but if the State takes upon itself to say that they shall only make the same rate in good times that they make in bad times, that it ought to make up the losses. I think the State ought to have nothing to do with it until somebody complains; let them take care of their own business.
It has been suggested to me that if the railroads have the :ight to make the rates they will go to robbing the people as of old. It has been truly said that they charged too much in various instances. N otwithstanding this you see that there has never been but two cases made in Georgia for extortion. Who is it that controls these railroads in Georgia? 'Who are some of the men in charge? One of them is one of the most distinguished men in the Sta'te, who is high enough and honorable enough to be appointed by the President of the United States to represent us before one of the greatest courts in the land; and when the question was raised as to his eligibility, before he would say one word that would imperil the good of the Democratic party he absolutely declijled to accept that high position. That is one of the men. We invited him to lay the foundation of our great capitol, and his distinguished name will go down and endure as long as the marble in that capitol, and yet they would have you to beIieve that he is one of those that you cannot trust. Here is another of the purest men upon whom you bestowed the highest office that was within your gift, and then here is the good and great McDaniel, the author of this bill, and who suggested the very amendments that we have put upon it. The officers of these roads are elected for their ability, their integrity and their honesty. Do you believe that men would long occupy such places, give their money and their all in these roads with such intentions as are sought to be imputed to them? It will not do. Some of them are the very highest and most honorable men we have in our country, and in the days that are past and gone, we find in them men that stood in the front of the battle and gave their own blood for the good of their country, and now you cannot 'trust them. Is there any reason why you should take the rates on the Western & Atlantic Road, which does an immense business, for the maximum for all other roads in the State? We have weaker roads which require much higher rates to support them. These people ought to be allowed to make their rates of freight, and I have no hesitancy in saying that they will obey'the law.
After the facts that have been stated as to the recommendations from the highest sources for a change in the Ill,w, should we not give the matter due consideration? I say, Mr. President, that the motion for a reconsideration of the amendment ought to be voted down and the bill passed with such other amendments that will perfect it and give these people their just rights.

33
HON. ROB'T F ALLIGANT, OF THE FIRST DISTRICT.
Mr. Falligant':"'-I do not propose to deliver a speech on this question, but simply in a conversational way to call your attention to what I conceive to be some misapprehensions as to the purposes of this bill. I can well understand how Senators who are perfectly honest in their intention to improve and if possible perfect this law may labor under misapprehensions in' reference to it. Very frequently those misapprehensions arise from a mistaken process of reasoning, and I think that the Senators from the 38th and 39th have fallen into error from this mistaken process. They start out in their theory with the idea that railroad cases are different from all other cases .coming before the court, and therefore they say the court cannot judiciously dispose of railroad cases j and then they say that after they try a case of this kind the decision in reference to it is gomg to be just as limited and contracted as any other case. They start out by saying that in its initiation a railroad case is different from any other case, and in its results it is the same as any other case. There is the trouble that exists in this process of reasoning, I think. I admit that a railroad case iOn some respect is going to be different from other cases., but I differ from the distinguished chairman of the Georgia Railroad ComjIlission in one of his statements before your body when assembled in joint session, represented by the two railroad committees of the Seriate and the House. Those who were present on that occa~ion will remember that the distinguished gentleman said that this talk about the necessity of experts was nonsense, that any sensible man could learn the whole thing in a week to ten days. I think there is need of experts. I can readily. discern that any jury of the- country can learn with the testimony of experts before them Ii great deal in a few hours. But what is going to be the effect of a decision in Ii railroad case, and the right of appeal provided for in this bill? In the first place, it is assumed in the argument here that every case is going to be a little case; that it is going to be a twenty-five dollar. case or a five or ten dollar case. I think there is the original error, and I want to put a pin down there and call your attention to it. This whole legislation originated not from overcharges, but from discrimination. Americus, if you will remember, &{)unded the alar/ll, and the difficulty arose from what they called unjust discrimination. I will invite your attention to the provisions of this bill, and see whether the Senators who made these objections are right or not. Does it provide simply for these little cases of overcharges? Not at all. In every instance all the parties who have boen overcharged can sue for the overcharges. They have their remedy in the courts: All these. cases would stand in the same way they did before. Everybody that has been overcharged has the right to go into court ~nd find out whether they have been overcharged or not. This bill is merely cumulative upon that. What is its provisions? It says "whenever any railroad com-
3

34
pany, doing business. in this State, shall'make, charge or 'collect other than just and reasonable rates tor the transportation of freight or passengers, or shall make unjnst discrimination in its charges for freight or passengers, or shall give or pay any rebate or bonus in the nature thereof, directly or indirectly, or do any act to mislead or deceive the public as to the real rates charged or received for freight or passage, any person," any person! Is it confined to your five or ten dollar man? "Any person, community, town, city. or corporation affected thereby may file, with commissioners appointed under the act of which this act is amendatory, a petition in writing, in which the cause or ground of complaint against such railroad company, and if the wrol)g or injury to the complainant shall be plainly and distinctly set forth." Right here I will meet the position of the Senator from the thirty-eighth. Isn't it more likely that the cause of complaint of the city, town, community or corporation will be the suit against the railroad, rather than the matter of an individual charge? The complaint will not be made by an individual for an overcharge; he has his remedy now. The complaint will be that such and such a rate for such and such a town .upon a certain classification or upon all the classifications which have been arranged by the railroad, discriminate against the town; against Americus or Athens or Albany; that will be the charge, and this bill provides for an appeal of that kind, not for an overcharge in an individual article, but a complaint of a system of rates can come before the Commission. That is where' the question comes up So you see that so far as that point is concerned, regard-
ing individu\il claims for overcharges, there is nothing in it. The bill
doesn't mean anything of that kind. It means that under its broad and comprehensive conditions, every question that the Commission now decides can be brought before it and decided as itis done now.
Mr. N orthen-Suppose my community made this appeal to the Commission and the Commission decided against the raiiroad and in favor of the community, and they appealed from the decision'of the Commissioners to the Superior Court of Hancock county, what would be the practimtl result ?
Mr. Falligant-The result would be this: Suppose the Superior Court of Hancock county sustains the decision of the Oommission? The bill provides that the Comtnission originally can grant or refuse a superse deas. The decision goes immediately into effect and the new rate is put upon; the railroad. The rate for the whole class or any particular article of 'the class goes into effect. Then the Superior Court may affirm the decision of the Commission. The Superior Court, under this bill, hasn't the right to grant a supe~edeas ; that is taken away, and here one of the arguments of t.he minority committee falls to the ground. This bill doesn't even allow the Superior Court to give a supersedeas. The case goes to ltIe Supreme Court, and what is done? Do they simply decide an individual case? Not at all. The Commissioners a~ authorized and empowered to decide and to make such rules-not a single rule or regulation-such rules and regulations concerning the same that are

35

just and reasonable, and not inconsistent with the laws of the State and

the United States. It is suggested by the gentlemen from the 43d and

20th that these are entirely questions of facts. There may be some

points of law connected with it.

Mr. N orthen-In order to get at the direct results, allow mc to ask

this additional question: My 'community, I say, coine up here and make

a case before the Commission, and the railroad authorities are aggrieved

by the decision and appeal to a jury of Hancock county; the citizens of

Hancock being interested, are they not disqualified from deciding that

question?

Mr. Falli~"ant-Not at all, sir; if the railroads are willing to submit

to that, you ought not complain.

.

Mr. N orthen:"":"-I think it ought to be upon a fair and equitable basis.

Mr. Falligant-How will the S'enator obtain that?

Mr. N orthen-Simply in this way, let us not appeal to the Jury, but

to some higher court.

Mr. Falligant-Where will you go?

Mr. Northen-To some higher Commission. '

Mr. Falligant-This discussion, you will remember, is not in its in-

fancy. It has been going on for a year. When the distinguished chair-

'man of the Railroad Commission reported in favor of some higher tri-

bunal, like the English Railroad Commission, when that question was

discussed, addressing the joint committee on railroads in the House and

Senate, he said we prefer a Commission without a jury, with an appeal

to a higher court, whose decisions would be final, but the. constitutional

objection was raised, that under the peculiar characte,r of our constitu-

tionallaws, you could not enact a law giving the final appeal in a judi-

cial way; it had to go to a jury.

Here are great interests coming before the people of Georgia, saying

give us even this boon. Let us go before the courts of our country with

the jury prejudiced against us.

There is a great deal of stress laid on the idea that the people are

calling for this or that measure. This is a mistake. Often an ambitious

man who wants to please them starts a measure which he thinks will

bring him before the State, and he does it in, the name of the people,

and he imagines as the prompting and whispering of his own ambition

sounds in his ears, that it is the universal cry of the people of Georgia.

Right here he is mistaken. I say that this cry that the people dem~nd

this, that, or the other thing, is a delusive cry on many occasions. Re-

member, you who are interested in lowering to the minimum, and to a

ruinous depth, the rates of the railroads, to ask yourself the question:

Do the people at large get the benefit of it? do the general consumers

of this State get the benefit of it? I bring this point right down to you. It is a practical question. The rate which may put several tho~

sand dollars in the pocket of a single merchant during the season, is

only a small part of what may take from the railroads of Georgia. five

hundred thousand dollars. The merchant doesn't care for that; he is

36
not even a stockholder. When you come to distrihute the profit he makes over the thousand hats, shirts or collars, where does the consumer get the benefit of it? The merchant cannot distribute one cent or two cents on a collar or a hat. He charges the same price for his goods and puts the profits in his pockets, and the consumer never gets a particle of benefit from it. There is an instance given in the Constitution this morning, frequently discussed, which illustrates this criminal and reckless working of the Railroad Commission making rates for the railroads. Take the instance which excited an indignant remonstrance from the State of Georgia at the time. The fertilizer men. a few years ago, had all their arrangements made for the sale of their product along the differentrailroads. Then contracts and prices for the delivery of the fertilizers were all fixed. In order to assist local necessity the Railroad Commission lowered the rate on fertilizers. What did it do? It took $75,000 out of the pockets of the stock-holders of the railroads of the State of Georgia, and put it where? Did it lower the price of the fertilizer for a single farmer in the State of Georgia? No; but it just deliberat~ly, and, I might say with malice aforethought, robbed the stockholders of the railroads of the State of Georgia of $75,000, and gave it as a bonus to foreigners, and no human being in Georgia got the benefit of It. It is to guard against just such criminal and reckless follies as that, that these provisions are asked for. And in another way the subCommittee on Railroads of the Senate discussed this question, and we showed you that there were between twelve and twenty thousand employes of railroa<ls in the State of Georgia alone, who are interested in the railroads, who live upon the railroads, and you' may safely take an average of four o~ five in every family, making between 50,000 to 100,000 people who are supported by the roads. Now take the stock-holden themselves. I have statistical information upon the subject from the highest authority. The aggregate capital stock of four railroads in Georgia is $18,035.600. Thisis invested in the Georgia Railroad, the Uentral Railroad, the South-western and the Atlanta and West Point Railroads. Over $12,000,000 of that is owned by Georgians. All the Qther railroads have been bankrupted. Those who originally invested their money did so under a solemn pledge from the State of Georgia that they should not be taxed until they had earned a profit on their in vestment. These railroads have stood as the bulwark of the commercial prosperity of Georgia. They have established the lines of your commerce, directly and indirectly from oceall to OCe(lll. They. have brought Georgia to her present state- of grandeur, and ellllbled you to say, truly, she is the Empire State of the South, and they bave done it while yOIl were sleeping. They may have made mistakes, they may have been arbitrary, they had a great work to accomplish, and very fr~quently stern measures were .. necessary. They knew that great contending systems were struggling for the commerce of Georgia.
Now you have a splendid commerce flowing through your borders from the east and west as great liS any State in the Union, in proJio.r-

37

tion to your inhabitants. What has been done by these railroads, how many millions have been invested in this State? There are over twelve millions of stock in these railroads owned by the people of Georgia.

Amount held by persons who own over 1,000 shares. . . . $ 2,839,600

Amount held by persons who own les~ than 1,000 and over

500 shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,916,800

Amount held by persons who own less than 500 and over 100

shares. . . . . . . . . '. . .

5,831,500

Amount held by persons who own less than 100 and over 50

shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,818,500

Amount held by pl)rsons who own less than 50 shares . . 4,629,200

Owned by women, children, charitable institutions, etc.. 8,456,600

Over .two-thirds of the amount owned in Georgia is owned by women, children and charitable institutions, who are dependent upon the income of the stock. Now, here is a point to be considered. When the friends of hard measures stand up before us and say, we want to give anolher turn to this thumb screw in favor of the people of Georgia, after all, are they not making a mistake in giving a little benefit to the merchant or shipper and operating against the rights of the consumer and the other people of tl.18 State of Georgia? All that is asked by the friends of the measure is not that you shall do anything injurious to the people of Georgia; they don't ask that in any respect. They simply ask that seventy-three millions of dollars of property invested honestly and honorably and bona fide in the State of Georgia, shall have the same privileges before the courts of the country as a pig or a horse or a cow. That is all, nothing more. N or do they expect that this bill shall take any power from this Commission. None at all. A great deal of the trouble and misapprehension in the discussion of this whole question is from the misapprehension of the term "regulate." Some assume to regulate is to make rates. Oil general principles it means to control directly or indirectly. When this committee was appointed upon this question I do not believe there was a single member that had made up his mind what he was going to do upon this subject. They went and investigated these mutters und report~d the bill to us exactly in the spirit of the Governor's recommendation. They don't propose to take a single item from the Commission's power. The Constitution invests the Legislature with the power to make laws from time to time to regulate freight and passenger tariffs. This committee, after full investigation of all the authorities, came to this conclusion, that the fact that the Legislature could pass laws' from time to time to regulate freight and passenger traffic did not proprio ';igore fortiori, divest the right of the rate making power. Itwas considered when this law was enacted that it was merely experimental. It would be an anomaly in legislation if it did not need an amendment: The'Railroad Commission from its conception in its report to the Legislature advocated giving the right of appeal, just as has been so strongly expressed by the distinguished Sena-

28
tor from the 32d, to whom you all listened a moment ago. He has discussed that question so fully that I do not think it is necessary for me to allude to it. Now we suggest that there should be a different method of regulation. How does it work? The railroads go along and make their rates, and do you Suppilse that with the power of this General Assembly to .pass laws from time to time, the dut.\' imposed upon the Legislature by the Constitution to pass laws from time to time, hanging like the sword of Damocles over them, that they are going to forget that and place themselves in the attitude to invite any further exercise of that prerogative? I say that the system of management will be more conservative than ever before. It will bring the railroad into direct contact so that the shipper can go right direct to the railroad manager instead of comin~ to town and going through the tedious process of carrying the ease up to the Railroad Commission. The whole spirit of this thing has been to complain when there was no necessity for it. If merchants are not complaining, if individuals are not complaining, if oth~r corporations are not complaining, in the name of heaven what is the necessityof a law to interfere? We shall not objeet if you desire to .,change the reading of this provision to "such rates, rules and regula, 1;ions as may be required." We considered that "rules and regulations" ._ c0vered the whole ground. We want to be in earnest and come as near to what is right as possible. You remember the Commission will be able to make a rate just as absolutely as they do now wfth only a single exception. By this means you wi!! bring this magnificent property under the laws of the State, and there is something very essential in that. I do not want to exclude any pruperty in the State of Georgia from thlit right.
I think the gentleman from the thirty-eighth has missed the fundamental objection to the amendment which he proposes. The debate upon this amendment has proceeded much further than I anticipated in the beginning of the argument. It has involved the whole time in the discussion of this question of appeal, and therefore, I shall touch upon the subject generally, only referring to those questions which have been more fully and ably discussed by gentlemen who have preceded me.
Now I assume that the Senator who has just addressed the house, and all who are to pass upon this measure propose to do so in a spirit of judicial fairness. I do not belicve that there is one Senator upon this floor who will allow passion or prejudice to control his decision in a question which involves so thor(jughly and particularly the great commercial interest and prosperity of Georgia. I think the language of this amendment is objectionable, and the objections are fundamental.
If there is one proposition which is imbedded in the laws of every nation on earth, and more particularly the laws and Constitution controling not only the United States, but the several States composing the United States. it is that a judicial body shall be perfectly impartial and fair in its judgments.' Now what does this amendment

39
propose to do? The bill is founded, as has been said, fundamen~ ally, and has its origin upon the recommendation of the Governor of Georgia. The law. provides that these Commissioners shall make thorough investigation as experts into the affairs of the railroads in their relation to the people and the prosperity of Georgia, shall make from time to time suggestions as to such change in the laws they may deem necessary. Now as it has been said by the Senator from the forty-second, almost from the inception of this Commission up to this year they have iterated and reiterated a suggestion in favor of an appeal from their decisions. That was fair and right. Why? Because originally, in their very first report, they seemed to fear the great powers that had been placed upon them. And I call the attention of this body to what they say in their first report upon this subject. 1 read from/the report of the Railroad Commission, dated May 1, 1881. The very first report made upon this subject: "There is no sense of weakness," says the Commission, "but rather an anxiety in the use of the large powers." Now, remember, here is a power creited by the government of Georgia, invested with absolute control of seventy-three millions of property, depreoating the power that they find themselves invested with. "They say it takes hold of this property the rights of property of the individuals and citizens of Georgia, like thumbscrews, so that even litigation to test them with iii dangerous. Remember, Senators, here is involved seventythree millions of property so that even the right on the part of the holders of this property to test the adjudication of this Commission is dangerous. That is what they say in their first report. The Senator from the Forty-second has read you what they say in the early part of 1884, and it is very true, the roads have rights of appeals, but they are so involved that it is difficult and dangerous for them to assert those rig;hts. The Senator from the Forty-second has also read you what they say on this subject, that in their judgment the Commission does what? "It prepares cases for trial, it doesn't ~ry them finally, upon a proper case made their action (inoperative unless sustained by the courts) can be taken from one court to another in due order, to the Supreme Court of the State or to thc, Supreme Court of the United States." In their report of 1881 they say this right of appeal exists. I turn to another section; on page sixteen of that report they say, "and the law in this instance provides for the correction of errors and mistakes in the most complete and informal" way, by an appeal to the Commission itself, without any motions for a new trial, and before and beside for an ultimate appeal to court after court to the Supreme Court of the State and of the United States."
Now here is this body quasi judicial, iterating and reiterating in its reports year after year, deprecating in the meantime the great powers with which they have been invested, but iterating and reiterating that in their opinion this right of appeal existed, but declaring that it was so involved in intricacies of1aws and statutes and penalities imposed, that it was difficult and dangerous for the citizens of Georgia to protect

40
their property by appeals to the courts. Here it has emanated in this report, and we may well ,say in reference to these matters in the light of the facts, "Oh, that mine enemy would write a book." We have got them on record. They can't go back on that opinion. They have prepared it deliberately. This is the longest report that they have ever mllile in which they went with judicial clearness into all the questions involving their powers and deliberately reported their convictions.
Mr. Rankin-I would like to ask the gentleman if he has never written or spoken what he found afterwards to be error, and may it not be a fact that the Commission found themselves in error?
Mr; Falligant-I expect I have many things to answer for in this house, but I have nev,qr, when the rights of the people have been imposed upon me or in the discharge of my duty, reported in favor of those rights and then at the last moment, when my powers were involved, when the legislative body which created me set out to put my powers under the limitations of the law, declared that I was above the Constitution and the laws. That is what these Ccmmissioners have done in their last report.
Mr. Rankin-Have they denied the rilJ:ht of the Legislature to aboliSh the law?
Mr. Falligant-I will reply in the course of my argument to what the Senator asks.
Mr. Rankin_Are they not the agents of the Legislature? Mr. Falligant-I think they are. Mr. Rankin-It is merely the power devolved upon the Legislature transferred to the Commission. Mr. Falligant-I am going on to discuss my views of the Commission and of the power conferred upon them by the Legislature. The Commission have said time and again that the ralhoads should have this right of appeal to the Superior and Supreme Court, and yet in the year of 1885, when their power is threatened and the voice of the people speaking through their exponents, and representatives, and through the great power of the press 1's calling upon the general assembly to pass this law for their protection as well as the protection of the' railroads, they stand up and say, that the measures proposed are unconstitutional. Mr. Rankin-H4ve the railroads not the right to appeal to Courts? Mr. Falligant--:The Commissioners, in the same breath that they give the right, say it is dangerous for railroli-ds 'to avail themselves of it. Why do not the railroads appeal? Because, as the Commissioners say, "it is dangerous to appeal." That this law haS taken hold like a thumb screw, and the peril is not that the railroads will make unjust and unreasonable rates; not that they will make unjust discrimination. The railroads are not afraid of that. They are willing to go before the Courts of the country upon that question. They are willing to have the judiciary decide with the rates made by the Commission as prima Jacie evidence, but Senators, the law of Georgia don't provide any penalties in that case. The law goes on and pro-

41
vides penalties for violating the rules and regulations of the railroad Commission, not for the violation of the laws of Georgia, not for making unjust and unreasonable rates,uot for making unjust discriminations, but for violating a rule or regulation of the railroad Uommission. When they go before the Courts from the railroad Commission all that anyone has to do is to prove that they have violated the rule in regard to maximum rates and you have a penalty fixed upon the railroad from a thousand to five thousand dollars.
The Senator from the 42nd hands me the law. . As the matter now stands parties are not without the right of appeal to the Courts, but the remedy is not sufficiently obvious.
The right of appeal has been settled in the Tilley case." Mr. Rankin-Does the gentleman believe that any party dissatisfied with the action of the Commission has the right to appeal? Mr. Falligant-I say that they have the right; but it is so environed as to render the difficulties and dangers so great with these penalties of from one to five thousand dollars hanging over the railroads for the failure in a single rule that it practically debars them from the right of appeal, so that as the law stands the right of appeal is a nullity. I do not propose to answer any more of the Senator's questions now on that subject. I don't propose to be driven by the Senator from the line of argument. Now, go back to the question in fairness. I say that the Commission has always been in favor of appeal, as we ,gather from their own statements. By their own arguments they have .sustained the right from beginning to end. They have asked the General Assembly year after year to change the law to remove this difficulty, but when the proposition is made to change the law, in accordance with the Governor's message, and in accordance with all previous reports of the Railroad Commission, they hedge themselves in behind the divinity of the constitution, and in reference to the law which they said should be changed that the right of appeal which they insisted on and said ought to exist to renaer it less dangerous for the railroads, they begin to soften down. Now what is the meaning of the Tilley decision? We might as well stop and consider it. The Tilley decision involved but one question, and that was th.e unconstitutionality of this act of 1879, creating the Railroad Commission. Judge Woods, delivering the decision, held upon that question that the Legislature having within its constitutional authority adopted this system of regulating the railroads, that the act was constitutional. Nothing more and noting else. That was the question. The Legislature lire invested with a discretion in' reference to their mllnner of regulating the railroads, freight and passenger fares, and preventing unjust discrimination. I say discretion as to the manner is absolutely invested in the Legislature; They can adopt any manner they please, or any system by which they can make maximum rates. If they do not choose to do that, they can adopt a system by which they give the railroads the rate-making power, or they can confer the

42

right of appeal to a commission and the courts. That is another manner

of regulating it. They may follow the Massachusetts law and make it

an Advisory Commission. Mr. Adams, in his great works on railroads,

hm extolled this Oommission as the safest and best in its results for the

State of Massachusetts that could be established by law. I believe in

the great force of public opinio}1. I believe it will always have a

trending in the right course, and I liste)) to the voice of public opinion

as it comes to me through the press of the country. Not to the magical

voice that comes to me from some individual or representative, but to

the voice of the people, which is sounding in the ears of this Senate de-

manding that the American principle of the defense of right and prop-

erty shall be engrafted in this law. Let us look at the fraudulent prin-

ciple which is involved in the amendment offered by the Se.lator from

the 38th. I say that if there is a fundamental principle that lives in

the American Constitution and law, that is a part of that which has

made our country great and powerful, it is that in every decision that

is rendered, the Oourts shall be perfectly impartial. Now what does his'

remedy propose? He says, he wants the Commission to fix a system of

rates. 'Don't this law say that as long as a railroad goes on interrupted-

ly they shall stand as fixed to the Railroad Oo:.lpany? Is there any

trouble about that? If the railroad makes a system of rates coming di-

rectly into communication with the citizens whom it serves, and they

have no objection, but say they are satisfied with it, doesen't that sys-

tem stand? I ask the Senators in deciding on this great question in

which the power and future greatness of Georgia is involved, I ask them

wnether the law should interfere to make the rates or whether the law

should wait till the case is made t'il decide, it? That is the judicial

function. The Railroad Commission of Georgia should not be converted

by law into common barrators. traveling in fancy over the country

which they have never been over, in 'fact, hunting up litigation in order

to make trouble between the railroads and the people j they should not

be common barrators, they should consist in a quasi, if not a thoroughly

judicial position, and decide the questions when they come before them

N ow I say a rate is established by a railroad company and it is perfect-

ly satisfactory. Suppose some individual thinks th<l system of rates too

high? He can make his case. Suppose a community think they are

discriminated against? Any community or body of -individuals can

make their case. Right there comes in the question. When they make

their ease in that way they come before a quasi judicial triburyal that

never passed upon the ease. The case is made, both sides have a hear-

ing, the community on one side, the railroad on the other, and the court

is not compelled to reverse its own judgment. There comes in a funda-

mental principle of American Constitutional Law. You have a fair

and impartial court-a court that has not made a ease against the rail-

road and only awaits for a hearing to affirm its own decision; but the

court hears something it has not discussed before. Here are both par-

I

~.

ties to the case; here is the evidence on both sides, and the argument

43

on both sides, and then the fairness of the judicial tribunal decides upon

the case that is made before it.

\

Mr. McBride-Doesen't my amendment provide that the commission

shall not pass upon a rate until after they have given notice to the com-

pany of a hearing.

Mr. Falligant-That is all very true, but in this case, remember, there

is no objection by the people. The rates fixed by all the railroads of

Georgia are perfectly satisfactory to all the people of the communities

through which they pass. They don't ask for any change of rates, they say

they are satisfactory and they do not desire the arbitrary power to inter-

fere, and yet they do it. They pass judgment on the question in which

they are to set in a court on appeal thereafter. There, Senators, is the fun-

damental objection to this amendment which the Senator from the 38th

propos"s. I say that the bill as it stands is a fair bill; it is a just bill.

The railroad, say w"will make rates satisfactory to the people we serve.

There is no necessity f"r the la'Y to interfere unless the people complain.

If the people complain thml let an impartial judiciary decide the q.lles-

tion with the right of appeal to either party. Is that not right and fair?

Are you going to make a judichiJ tribunal th!tt will make judgments in

advance of a hearl1lg of the parties and then sit merely to sustain its

own judgments? How lIre you going to establish a tribunal in a spirit

of fairness that will be a protection to propcrty rights of every kind

and clescripti(lll? I submit this is the leadin~~ objection to this measure

and I hope the Senate will vote it clown.

RAY'S AMEKDMENT.
1lr. Falligant-I think the amendment is entirely unnecessary be; caus" the evident intention of the statute is to give to every individual who is affected, directly or indirectly, the opportunity of coming bef(J)l'e the Commission to have his cause of complaint considered that it may be r"moved or prevented. Then it goes Oil further and adds "any community, town, city orcurporation." It is most marv,elous assumption on the part of any Senator, 1 think, that where allY community is affected by any rate or by any discimination which, in their opinion, is put upon them by a railroad company, that cOlllmunity is not going to act. That like Sodom, having only one righteous man, that community will have only one intelli:.;ent man who understands his rights and powers and has the courage to maintain them. It seems to me that the present language of this bill provides for every possible contingency. If any individual is injund he can go in his individual capacity and file his complaint. If any number of individuals are injured, they can CO\11plain, the statute has been framed with a viewto an equitable proceeding. Any number of individuals may unite linder it without }',glird to the community, or the whole community, if it is desired in its corporate capacity, or by its public officers, call make eomplaint. So that every provision is made. It seems to me that the amendment of the Senator from the 36th is unnecessary and is already covered by the very succinct language of the bill.

44
McBRIDE'S AMENDMENT.
Mr. Falligant-Before the final vote is taken on this amendment it is my desire to reply to certain -points that were made by tile Senator from the 25th, in his address to you this morning. In his address he assumed the position that in considedng this case the Senators s'hould consider themselves as jurors to come to an impartial decision in this case after considering all the facts. He said that all the evidence upon the subject should be explained before the Senate; that it should be discussed fully, clearly and impartially, and a decision rendered on the evidence. Let us see if he has acted iIi the capacity of a fair and impartial j~ror. He has excluded in his consideration of the subject everything except the information which he has obtatned from the Georgia railroad commission and confined his verdict to an illustration of the points that they have made against the railroads.
Because the Senator from the Twenty-fifth has involved the whole broad question in the argument which should have been confined, I think, in great measure to the question which was immediately before us, I propose to answer some of the statistical, legal and constitutional points made by him. as far as I can, in the limited time that has been given me to "btain information. In the first place, Senators, in calling your attention to one point regarding the Georgia Railroad Commission, I will say I wish to detract nothing from their influence-moral, political, or otherwise. I wish to do them full justice in this discussion.
He cunsidered it the glory of that Commission that in nine instances in which cases had been brought before them, eight of them'had been qecided in favor of the railroads, and he displayed great eloquence in commenting upon their action in advancing the rates upon classes C, D, and F. They had gone so far, he said, as to give the railroads an increase of twenty-five per cent. I think that when you have the real facts of the case before you, it will not appear that a great benefit has been bestowed upon the railroads, How did they start out? Of course these railroads were accustomed to certain rates which the people in general have been satisfied with. I stand here and declare as I did on another 'occasion, that there were complaints from very few with reference to charges. If there were over-charges, the law allowed them, as it does now, recovery of them. The difficulty was not as to rates. The commnnities were everywhere satisfied with the rates fixed for them by the rai,It'oad companies. The difficulty was that there were unjust discriminations between communities.
N ow, what did the Commission go in and do ? You must understand this to comprehend the force of the argument of the Stlnatur from the Twenty~Fifthnponthat point. The law says that the Uommission was experimental. I repeat, what did 'they do? Did they take the rates and gradually come down to lower rates until they reached a point which they considered just and reasonable in its working and in its resuits? Did this great corporate jlOwer, 'in which was invested the control of so much of the property of the Stat~ of Georgia, slowly and con-

45
servatively decrease the rates to what they considered to be a just and reasonable basis? Not at all. But, with one sweep of the pen, with one publication of their standard rates, they reduced them from the maximum to the lowest minimum.
They started below the living in order to test just how long the vitality of the railroads could exist upon that basis, and gradu!,lly relent.ed as the breath seemed to be leaving the body, giving a little, a lit.tle, and a little more until they reached what they considered to be a just and reasonable rate. The railroads, with this great power staring them in the face, a power which involved in its jurisdiction the interests of the people of Georgia to so large an extent even to the amount of twelve millions of dollars, the railroads, I say, through their representatives and trustees, when they went to the Commission had to go not appealing for justice but for mercy. Because occasionally the rates were slowly raised from the ruinous point from which they started, we are asked to give great credit to the Commission. Because the Commission gradually raised the rates from a ruinous to a living point, after being appealed to by the railroads, it is claimed that this shows great justice and magnanimity. When the RailrGad Commissson raised these rates what was their decision?
In every instance where they raised those rates they decided that they have been violating their trust and had, been imposing upon the railroad companies before that time unjust and unreasonable rates.
I assume, for the purposes of this argument, that the qfficers of the Commission intended to do right, and I have the highest respect for their intelligence and their integrity. But in every instance they came up to just and reasonable rates; from rates that were unjust and unreasonable, and because they raised those rates, and in that manner it is claimed that this was a display of magnanimity.
I call tho attent,ion of the Senators particularly to one point. What is the history of the rates C. D. and F? For a long period of time they worked up from minimum rates to what were considered rates that were just and reasonable. The railroads were operating under the sta,ndard tariff with reference to classes, C. D. and F. for a long period of ,time, and the Railroad Commission under its high power and authority had, declared the rates fixed upon classes C. D. and F. to be just and reasona~le. Now, then, what was done? There came about one of those grilltt railroad wars between the Western Trunk lines, running from the great West to New York. There were four of those great lines.. There was a competition between these lines which affected our Southern ports. The rates ,were so cheap on account of this war that New York, Chicago or any of those large Western cities could compete in rates with the railroad systems of Charleston, Savannah or any of our coast ports. It is well known how destructive are the railroad wars of values to public and private interests. N ow in order' to meet that temporary war, the railroads of Georgia were appealed to by their great western connections to lower their rates in order that Chicago, St. Louis and the other great

46

cities of the West could compete with the great trunk lines running from the West toNew York. What did the Railroad Commission of Georgia do? Right here is the death of the argument of the Senator from the Twenty-fifth upon this point. What did the Commission do? The Railroad Commission reduced C, D and F, which had been running, at j\lst and reasonable rates under their decision, fifty per cent. Because of this temporary necessity imposed upon them by this great railn'ad war of the trunk lines between the West and New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Baltimore, the Railroad Commission took advantage of the cireumstanees and redueed the rates on classes C, D and F, fifty per cent. Every Senator in this body remembers that every railroad corporation running through or into Georgia united in an appeal to the Railroad Commission, protesting against the great wrong, showing how much superior were the rates in every other State of the Union to the ratlJs allowed by the Railroad Commission of the State of Georgia upon C, D and F. Then what did the Railroad Commission do? They raised'the rates one-half their previous reduetion, and thus left them twenty-five per cent. below what they were originally established, and at whieh point they were considered reasonable and just by the Railroad Commission. They made the advance after being shown that the rates upon similar classes in eleven States of this Union were in advance of what they were in Georgia.
Now, Senators, it is very well, you know, just to read from a book which has been,elaborately prepared for a purpose to establish an argument upon a subject that you do not comprehend. I have shown you that \ the rates are still twenty-five per cent. below what they were originally, and there is nothing in the argument that the Railroad Commission have shown great magnanimity toward the railroads by advancing the rates twenty-five per eent.
N ow, in. reference to these great incomes that have been made by these railroad companies, I invoke the attention of tIle Senators to that question. I know you are very tired, but an argument upon this point has been made, and it must be met.
It has been declared that a Georgia railroad company made fourteen per cent. upon their investment. That has been iterated and reiterated by the Georgia Railroad Commission to show what has been accomplished in favor of railroads. There is not a word of truth in that Senators. The argument of the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth was really nothing but a recapitulation of the letters which have come from Mr. Campbell Wallace upon this question, and which were replied to by the President of the Uentral Railroad, in a letter addressed to Mr. Colley, chairman, December 11th, 1884. It is impossible now to read these letters, which were so th~ough and completll of their vindication of the gentlemen who have been charged almost with malfeasance in the great trust that they had assumed. .The letter of Mr. Raoul, in reply to the letter of Mr. C;mpbell Wallace, which was quoted by the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth, was a complete vindication of the offi-

47
,.
cials of that Company. :Mr. Wallace waited then for six long months, and sent in his second letter, which was nothing but a rehash of tbe first one. He was replied to overwhelmingly by the last letter of the President of the Central Railroad, addressed to Chairman Colley, and dated ,July 20th, 1885. Now, Senators, see how this case is being argued by the gentleman from the Twenty-Fifth. He merely reads excerpts
statistical in their character from one side.. :t hope, Senators, you have
investigated these letters thoroughly, for yourselves, bccause, before you make up your minds to decide this' question, you ought at least to consider all the facts embodied in these letters, where the questions before us are so ably discussed.
The reports made by the different railroad companies to the railroad commission are put upon blanks furnished by the Commission, and it is their own formula. I do not think that the statement presented here by the Railroad Commission is ingenious as far as figures are. concerned. Take the Georgia Railroad. It is charged by the gentleman from the 25th this morning, that they made 14 per cent.on their capital stock. or upon their investment. Here is what Captain Raoul says in reply to that statement:
'The published report of the General Manager of the Georgia Railroad for the year ending March 31st, 1884, was full and explicit. The same information, so far as relates to earnings and expenses, was embodied in the monthly reports, which, in compliance with the law, were furnished the Railroad Commission.
"The so-culled analysis of this road's operations, submitted by Major W ullule, confuses thut which was stated clearly, and it is even more misleading than the stal.ement made by him in December, 1884. He not only insists on including the income received from other p:-operties as a part of the net earnings of the road, bnt in his desire to show that the lessees earned over thirteen per cent. on the capital stock of the company, he dllducts the amount expended for improvements, betterments, etc. Why not deduct the total enpenditilre, and say that this prosperous corporation earned over thirty-two per ce.it. on its capitul stock? The expenses for improvements, viz: new rails, cars, engines, etc., were as necessury us those incurred for conducting its business in other respeets. Here, aguin, we followed the prudent policy laid' down in tlHJ decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which Major Wallace quotes and indorses, Xet ~ores it in discussing the affairs of the roads in Georgia.
"As on a former occasion, he insists upon confusing net earnings of the road with income of the company.
"I cannot see how it is possible to state the affairs of the Georgia Railroad with more conciseness-1 know they cannot be stated with more correctness-than in m.y former letter. I Hepeat it in part: .

Capital Stock is. . . . . . . , Bonded obligations amQunted to

; $4,200,000 . 2,681.000

Total.

. $6,881,000

48

" The net earnings for the year, endiT'!!: March 31st, 1884, amounted to $477,545.32, a ~um less than seven per cent. on the capital account. Correctly speaking, $6,881,000 does not represent the cost of the Georgia railroad. The Macon and Augusta railroad (now a part of the Georgia, and which assisted in contributing to the reported net earning), was secured by the expenditure of $1,169,406;12. Of this amount the sum of $296,000 is represented by bonds maturing January 1st, 1887, and included in bonded debt already stated. The large balance, amounting to the sum of $873,406.12, was charged to the account of profit and loss.
"In acquiring this property it would have been entirely legitimate and proper to have increased the capital stock to the extent of its cost. Thus considered, the road would have been capitalized at $7,754,406.12, and its net earnings for the Yllar under discussion would have been a fraction less than 6 16-100 per cent. on the capital invested.
"The Walton railroad is stated by Major Wallace to have earned 6 per cent. on its stock. The Walton railroad paid nothing on its capital stock. Its net ",arnings barely paid 6 per cent. on a light bonded debt.
The Rome railroad is staterl by him to have earned 6 per cent. on its capital stock. The annual report of the road for the year under discussion discloses the following facts:

Total receipts Expenditures

$47,097 61 39,802 20

Net l)arnings .

$ 7,295 41

which is a little less than 3 per cent. on its capital stock of $250,~43.75. It has no bonds outstanding.
"When the Georgia railroad was leased, the commission had been established for nearly two years, and the rates then of force were the rates of the commission, and were presumably "just and reasonable." It was natural to believe that these rates would not be materially disturbed, and that the power of the State would be exercised with judgment. This conviction had much to do in inducing the lessees to make the contract. At the end of four years, results show that though the tonnage has increased 12.35 per cent., the freight revenue decreased 14.83 per cent. The same consideration governed the lessees that a farmer would observe in fertilizing his land, and pJ;oviding himself with improved labor-saving implements. The ~utlay would be considerable, but compensation would be fpund in prolific crops and economy of cultivation. Just so with the lessees; with a view to reducing the cost of operating, ,large expenditures' were made for .the improvement of the property. The money was planted and it bore fruit, but the commission 'gathered the harvest-for others."
I do -not understand why a war is waged against this particular railroad system. All the vials of wrath are poured out on this Central railroad system. In every instance where he has been confronted by the

49

facts he has been obliged to go down before them. What are the facts

in reference to this lease of the Georgia railroad?

The Central railroad company did not give $6,881,000 for the Geor-

gia railroad as it stands. They bought the interest of the Georgia rail-

road in the Western railroad of Alabama, and in the Rome r'lilroad, all

of which bring money into the pocket of the lesses, the Central railroad

and banking company, only being excluded. You have seen how en-

tirely fictitious are the charges made by Mr. Wallace. Again in regard

to the net income of the Georgia raill'oad and the statements, made by

Mr. Wallace in regard to that matter, I will read you Mr. Raoul's reply

in his first letter:

" Before concluding, I desire to correct one other misleading state-

ment. Major Wallace, in his efforts to establish proof that the roads

are earning sufficient money under the present commissioner's rates

says: "The Georgia railroad is a part of the Central railroad system,

The net earnings of this road during the year just passed, are reported

at $593,000, an amount equal to about 14 per cent. upon their capi-

tal stock of $4,200,000."

"N0 one knows better than Major Wallace the distinction between

net earnjngs of a road and net income of a company. No one knows

better than he does that to include all the outside income of a company

in a statement intending to show the net earnings of a road, does not

convey a correct impression as to the revenue derived from the opera-

tions of the road, and this is the point at issue. In all fairness, if he

felt it necessary to use the operations of the Georgia railroad to illus-

trate his proposition, he shou.d have told you that the lessees of the

of the Georgia railroad earned upon operations of road$477,545 32

Received from A. & W. P. stock '. .

52,908 00

Received from W. R'y. of .<\labama .

28,12000

Received from Rome Railroad. .

7,446 87

Received from Walton Railroad.

1,860 00

Received from other investments.

24,347 38

Total net income. . . . .

, $592,227 57

He then should have shown that the value of the Georgia railroad, as represented by its bonded debt and capital stock is $6,881,000; the net earnings of the railroad proper being $477,545.32, or an interest on the value of the Georgia railroad proper, of less than seven per cent for the year. The value of all the property leased from the Georgia railroad and Banking Company amounts to $10,875,300, and the rental paid for it is $600,000 per year, which is abont 5~ per cent on its value."
I stand in my place and say that it is in the interests of the people of Georgia that these mediums should be united, because the consolidation of roads makes a up-ion of interests, resulting in a benefit to the people. It is to the interests of the people of Georgia that these great linel should be built up so that they can control the trade of the great west
4

50
and bring it through Georgia to our own seaports. So far as public policy is concerned this consolidation of interests and railroad management should be encouraged by the General Assembly of the State.
I have given you these extracts to meet the statements of the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth upon the subject of the lease and the income of the Georgia Railroad Company, and I think the statistics presented by President Raoul are conclusive." I repeat what I said this morning, that the statements made by the President of the Central Railroad and Banking Company are correct. I hold in my hand now a letter from the chairman of the Railroad Commission, in which he declined to go into an investigation with the sub-committee wi1h a view to establishing, the veracity of the reports made by the President of the Oentral Railroad. After that investigation I can say that the reports of President &oul, ,of the Central Railroad, were correct, and that the Central Railrcilib. had only earned, as he said, upon its stock 1.18 per cent., and urth(lr, bet for the income derived from the Macon and Western r,ailo rc,ad '~itd other connections, and from that great navy, the Ocean Steamship Company, there never would have been any dividend to the stockholders of the Central Railroad and Banking Company. Instead of being a charge and burden, in most instances it is from these outside sourees, which have been established by the wisdom of the great managers, that sufficient income has been derived to make a dividend to the stockholders. What did they have this year? A semi-annual divide,nd of 2 per cent., and whether they will get another 2 per' cent. at the' end of the year the Lord only knows. That dividend would have been impossible had it not been for the income of the Central Railroad from the earnings of these outside sources. Those' are the resources whicl;1Mr. Walla.ce says are a ch9rge and an (lxpense to which the income of the Central Railroad h8s gone. I tell y.ou, Senators, this statement is false in every respect. They cannot establish.it. But it seems thlit when you cut off one head a thousand more spring up. I call attention to the fact that this very Tilley case 'about whieh so much has been said, proves the statement that I make. It call~d up a full investigation of the rate put upon the Savannah, Western and Florida Railroad, and the Commission decided that so far as any income was derived from those rates, they would't even be able to pay'their fixed charges and their interest on their bonded debt. That shows you, Senators, the force of argument of the member from the TwentyFifth. It was proved that this magnificent pr"perty-the Savannah, Florida and Western Railroad-would not produce enough income to pay the expenses of the road anl!! pay the interest on the bonded debt. That is the reason they appealed to the court. They were driven to it. Just as we were recover'ng from t'be long period of adversity after 1873, just as every other great commercial and agricultural interest was getting the benefit of the returning tide of prosperity, this Railroad Commission was...put upon the railroads of Georgia, and they were deprived of that benefit. Every other interest prospered, but the railroad companies of

51
Georgia were throttled by minimum rates, whieh they struggled against in the eourt and every other way: Instead of the eompanies heing benefited by the' aet of the Commission raising the rates, the very eontrarJ- is true. 'h.s I have explained to you, the rates on one elass are 25 per eent. lower than the Hailroad Commission deeided just and reasonable. All this argument about the magnificent ineome of these railroads falls to the ground. I look in your faees as honest men representing the great eommunities who sent yon here. Call over the names of the distinguished gentlemen who represent these high trusts; name them one by one. Are they going to come before you and deceive you? Are they goLng to attempt to deeeive you? Is there any reasou why they should tell you one thing andtheir stoek-holders another? They make , their own record, and it stands as an eternal witness for or against them. By that testimony they stand or fall. The Senator from the Twenty_ Fifth talks about the sub-committee of the Senate taking a one-sided view of this question. That sub-committee was appointed long after both joint committees of the two Houses had met in session. You were here; I was here; the railroad eommission was here. Tntelligent experts were invited here. Hepresentatives from the great railroad companies were invited here to testify in reference to these facts. They came here and met face to face. The statements made by Mr. Wallace were controverted by the leading representatives of the various railroads. What did they say in reply to the assertions? That they were baseless, .utterly baseless in point of fact. Did they say that they wanted to destroy the Hailroad Commission? They said: "Gentlemen, we would rather have the Hailroud Commission if it is properly administered and is conservative in its views. not only upon the railroads, but upon the people." They said: "We want it. It can afford us protection." I believe that the railroads would b~ willing to, pay an the expenses if a properly regulated commission, judicial in its eharacter and fair in its investigations and dealings. The assertions of the gentleman from the Twenty-Fifth that the railroads wished to destroy the commission are not sustained by the facts. He tried to array the passions and prejndiees of men against these railroad companies. He made an argument which contained in itself its refutation, that if you give the railroad companies the power to regulate the rates, subject to power of the commission of Georgia, they would immediately advanee their rates, as in one instance he mentioned-from sixteen cents to sixty-five. Is that the testimony of the railroad gentlemen? Were they not perfectly conservative in their statements when they were asked whether there would bave been a reduction in the rates if the Hailroad Commission had not existed? They said certainly, the tendency during the last five or ten years has been to a gradual reduction of rates. The con30lidation or the great through lines of the country and the competiti(Jn of the different railroad systems forces this reduction. Such. a reduction as that would have been conservative, and would have given the railroad men time to prepare for it. So far as the inclination of the railroads to de-

52

mand exorbitant rates is concerned the competition will not allow it.

The great laws of trade that control the great highways of commerce

would not allow it. In this case the reduction of rates would have been

gradual. The railroads need our support. They must make large ex-

penditures. They want all the equipments that are necessary for the

protection of life and property.. But your Commission is wringing from

them the last drop of blood that is left.

The railroad' gentlemen who have come before the Legislature have

been candid in their statements. They have told you the truth. The

gentlemen have told you that competition would necessarily have

brought down the rates, but they would have come down in such a con-

servative way that the railroads would have been prepared for a change.

Only the other day the statement was made in an interview in a leading

paper, when asked if there would be a material change in the rates if

the Commission did not exist, the answer was made that there would be

no material change in the rates, because competition controlled it.

What was Governor McDaniel's interpretation ofjust and reasonable

rates? He said that the railroads should have sufficient income for run-

ning expenses, fixed charges, improvement of the property, and a rea-

sonable income on the investment. The rates should be so fixed as to

enable them to make a per cent. on their investment. But what has

been the action of the Commission? They doubled the rates on lumber

and naval stores, the very cheapest articles of traffic, and the rates on

satins, silks and all the luxuries of life were reduced. Take an instal'lce

of the rate on flour. They changed the rate on flour on the Savannah,

Florida & vVestern Road, for a certain distance from 68 to 15 cents.

Wasn't that extraordinary? The people were not asking it. It was

just as arbitrary as possible. If the railroads make their own rates they

can adapt them to the' necessities of the case. They can put burdens

npon the articles that should properly bear it. Under this bill they

have no absolute right, and the Railroad Commission is not divested of a single power. Railroads come directly in c~ntact with the people, and

the people can go directly to them and deal with them. Will you tell

me that after six years of control, the railroad companies are going to

do anything to draw downyour wrath upon them? Not at all; they

will be more conservative than ever. The railrollid, if it lives at all must

live by the patronage of the territory through which it runs, and it must

consult the interests of the people of that territory. These are facts

which you must consider before you make up your minds upon this sub-

ject.

Mr. Rankin-The gentleman stated that he had a letter from the

chairman of the Railroad Commission, declining to go with the sub-

<lOmmittee in their investigation. Will he please read the letter?

Mr. Falligant-Certainly, here it is.

Mr. Rankin-It merely says this, that it did not desire to make anit

exparte investigation.

...,,7>....,.,

Mr. Falligant-I r"pudiate the idea that it has been exparte in any

53
respect. I say the whole investigation was as free and open as it could be. All the parties were invited to come before the railroad committee of both houses and give their testimony before it. There were certain points which we thought necessary for us to investigate. It was thought necessary that the railroad committee should know the exact condition of the various railroads in the State.
Mr. Allen-I will ask whether the resolution appointing this subcommittee authorized them to make the investigation?
Mr. Falligant-The joint committee appointed this sub-committe", because it was conceded that the subject was too broad for the whole committee to attempt to go into any further investigation on account of the financial difficulties of the State at the time. The sub-committees were appointed with the understanding at the time that they would investigate the whole subject and make report to the committee.
Mr. Allen-Was that report made to the Senate by the chairman of that committee?
Mr. Falligant-The Journal. will show. I presume it was. The Senate Committee on railroads appointed a sub-committee to make an investigation and report back our views to the Railroad Uommittee. and we did so in a report. It seems to me that the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth is extremely inconsistent. That report simply sustains, in every respect, and is based fundamentally upon the recommendations of the Governor of the State of Georgia, and the Railroad Commission. If I am correctly informed, all the parties, the Governor, the Railway Commission and everybody else were at that time agreed upon the justice of having a complete investigation made.
Mr. Rankin-I desire to ask a question without making an explananation of its object, and without intending in any manner to reflect upon the Uommittee. I presume the Senator will understand the reason for my question. I would like to know who employed this expert to make the investigation.
Mr. Falligant-Captain Raoul gave mQ the money to pay for it. The committee selected their expert. The President of the Uentral Railroad told the committee that the company would gladly pay for any investigation that might throw light upon the subject. I made the contract and I paid the money to the expert. They were ready to pay any expense of any kind whatever.
Mr. Rankin-I ask it for the reason that there has been severe strictures for such conduct on the part of another committee.
Mr. Falligant-I expected the question. There is nothing hidden in reference to it. The whole question was discussed between the Senate and House committees. The expert, I think. was named by Senator Johnson. At the time it was understood that there were no funds in the treasury to pay for such an investigation. There is nothing hidden " about it.
Mr. Rankin-I hope the gentleman will understand my question. I didn't impute anything wrong to the committee.

54
Mr. Cabaniss-The gentleman has been in the same boat himself. Mr. Falligant-If the committee are ex petrie, the Governor aud the Railroad Commission are the same. The Railroad Commission has been advising this right of appeal in every report until 1885. What does Gov. McDaniel say in his message? It is unnecessary for me to repeat the whole quotation. I refer the Senator to the report made by'the subcommittee in which they use, word for word, language of Gov. J\IcDaniel. The report of the Railroad Committee is based fundamentally upon the views, counsel and recommendations of the Governor of Gecrgia, and yet the Senator from the Twenty-fithth ,wouldlhave you pay no attention to it. In that investigation we sought to deal impartially with the railroads and the Commission and everybody else. The endeavor to throw discredit upon the report of the committee and its opportunitie.s for investigation it in strange contrast with the declaration of the chairman of the Railroad Commission that any sensible man rvuld learn the whole thing in a week or ten days. Now coming to the legal question. What is the position of the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth? I do declare that the position assumed on the part of the opposition is the most extraordinary proposition I have ever known. The Senator from the Forty-Third started out to establish the proposition that the right of appeal existed under the present law. Then he went on to establish the unconstitutionality of the right of appeal. I would like for him to discover any consistency in an ar gument of that kind. N ow, what is the position of the other side. The opposition admit that it is purely a legislative qnestion, and they say an appeal to the courts would be unconstitutional. I will admit that if you leave it as it is, their argument may be correct. The very purpos,e of this bill is to change the law. As I understand, it is the constitutional prerogative of the General Assembly to pass laws to regulate from time to time this question. Now the law has been passed for six years. It has been in operation for that time. It was an experiment. A doz~n times the commission had declared it defective. The voice of the people of Georgia, through their exponent, the press, says it is defective, and we are now going on to discharge our constitutional functions under that authority to pass laws from time to time. "Ve propose to change this law. They say that as long as the Railroad Commission has the power to make rates it is a delegation of that power by the General Assembly. The courts have declared that it is a legislative and not a judicial functiop" and that the commission are the agen ts of the legislature, are really the'legislature themselves, 'and that the judicial cannot interfere with the legislative branch, and yet they say the executive can interfere. The constitution says the legislative, executive and judicial departments are distinct. The judicial cannot interfere' with the legislative function, yet they tell you the executive can. That is a most extraordinary proposition.- It seems to me it confutes itself. In the original law, you declare that the legislature shall regulate the rates. ,\Ve sayllOw, after six years of experience, in order to regulate

55
the rates it is unnecessary to make rates, therefore we will let the railroads make rates, and, carrying out our constitutional function, we will regulate them in another way. How? By letting the commission pass upon them in a judicial way after they have been made, when the question is laid before them. This is what is proposed in the amendment of the Senator from the Ninth. All this argument about the constitution_ ality of that amendment and the substitute is fallacious. There is nothing in it. If you adopt the amendment of the Senator from the Thirtyeighth you will leave the law exactly where it is at present, and you will retain the legislative function in the commission.
On motion of Mr. McBride, the Senate adjourned. Mr. Falligant-Mr. President and Senators: When this bill was last under discussion, I was closing an argument in reply to the Senator' from the Twenty-Fifth.. In discussing the amendment of the Senator from the Thirty-Eighth, the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth thought proper to discuss all the broad and important question~ which were involved, not only in the pending legislation, but in tbe history and work. ing of the Railroad Commission of Georgia. Perhaps it would have been better to confine the discussion to the matter immediately in point, for impressions produced and the effect of discursive discus sions of this kind sometimes fix themselves in the human mind and work out the problems of thought in a manner adverse to the issues that have been truly and properly presented, therefore I thought it neeessary in the reply that I made to go more fully into details, and I shall ther~e. fore continue the course of argument upon which I entered on that occasion. You will remember that certain well defined points were made by the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth. One was that no harm had been done to the railroads. The second was that if harm had been done they had three speeific sources of appeal: First, to the Oommission; second, to the Governor of Georgia, and third, t~ the courts of the land. Mr. McBride-To the. Legislature. Mr. Falligant-They said they had the right to appeal to the courts too. In addition to that he discussed .the right of appeal to tne Legislature, which I propose to diseuss as I proceed in this argument A great deal has been said about the decision in the Tilley case and its bearings upon this discussion. I shall try as I proceed to be as brief as possible and try to make my points clearly and distinctly. I invoke the attention of the Senate because I hope in the course of the discussion to do away with man} of the false impressions that have arisen upon the points produced by the arguments before you. One of the salient points of error is in regard to the appeal to the Legislature. I comprehend the Tilley decision to mean that the Constitution of Georgia has vested in the General Assembly of the State the right to regulate fares and freights and to prevent unjust discriminations, and for that purpose it is made their duty from time to tIme to pass laws. to that end. That is agreed upon. They adopted a certain system of laws, the law which established the present Railroad Commission. The point I make is that they did

56
not exhaust their power; that the decision of the Tilley case was to the effect that in establishing that particular plan of regulation, the Legislature did not go beyond its constitutional powers. In pursuance of that deCision the Supreme Court of Georgia, in the 70th volume of reports, held the law also to be constitutional. But they in plain terms declared that it was a new and u.ntried law, that it was experimental in its character, and that the very language ofthe Constitution contemplated that in- the experience and good judgment of the General Assembly they should pass laws from time to time with a view to meet the necessary changes. Now then, tll:king up first in order the right of appeal to the General Assembly which has been argued on the other side. What is that right of appeal ? Certainly, Senators, it is not the right of appeal from the Commission to the General Assembly of Georgia, in order that the General Assembly shall look into a particular 'rate or system of rates and charges. That would involve the General Assembly in such a convolution of facts and figures that the same difficulty would be presented
to Yo.u in an investigation of that kind as was originally presented in
the making of the rates. Exactly the argument upon which Judge Woods is proceeding, and the result of the Commission proceeding in the original Tilley case would be involved in the case made upon that principle before the Legislature. I assume that it is unnecessary to argue that point, that an appeal could not be made upon the rates because the Legisl~ture would have to sit from month to month, and from year to year, to discharge its duty if such was its duty. Iprefer, Senators, to take the decision of Judge Woods as it is, and see what it means. I say that Judge Woods decided that the appeal for relief to the General Assembly w~s for a change of the law, and I read the language of the decision upon that point: "The railroad company, after testing the results of the schedule of rates fixed by the Commissioners, and finding it to be unjust and unreasonable, can apply'to the Commissioners. for redress. If redress is denied theinthere they can apply to the Legislature for relief. Believing the law under which the Commissioners are appointed to be within the constitutional power of the Legislature, the redress must come either from the Oommissioners or the General Assembly; it is not in the power of this court to give relief. As remarked by Mr. Justice Swayne, in Gilmon vs, Philadelphia, 3. Wall" 713: 'Many abuses may arise in the Legislation of the States, which are wholly beyond -the reach of the government of the nation. T~e safe guard and 'remedy are to .be found in the virtue and intelligence of the people. They can make and unmake constitutions and laws, and from that trio bunal there is no appeaL'" It is from that power we are to appeal to the General Assembly where the law is unjust, where its workings are unjust. where it oppresses the citizens and destroys the right of property of the citizens. We are to go to the General Assembly of the State of Georgia and show them the difficulties and let them, in their assembled wisdom, alter the law to meet the exigencies of the case, I say that is what the railroad system of Georgia has done. I know it is often the

57
spirit of some who oppose the bill to attack them for their appearance before this General Assembly.
The public press in some instances have denounced them because they have dared to come before the General Assembly of Georgia in the exercise of their constitutional right of asking for a redress and when too of their greivances. It is just exactly what the courts say they shall do. They are violating no public duty, when in obedience to the mandates of the court and the Oonstitution and in fulfillment of the great trust that has been imposed upon them they have dared to invade the sanctuary of the halls of the legislature to secure the right of appeal. A right that was wrung by the Barons at Runnymede in securing Magna Oharta, which has existed among English speaking people from that time to the present day. I say that when they come before you Senators they come not as individuals, not as a corporation, but as trustees representing a high and noble trust that has been imposed upon them by the laws of Georgia when the charters were granted to these great corporations. What did the laws of Georgia say? The laws of Georgia said that when the citizens of Georgia invested their wealth in this corporate way, when they aggregated their wealth for the Commonwealth of Georgia that they had the right to do what? To select the pllll"ties who should manage and control their property under the laws of Georgia. Is that not so? They selected the trustees and the Board of Directors, who are the trustees of these interests. In the course of that discussion I have shown you Senators that those trustees in the State of Georgia represent an aggregate property right of seventy-three millions of dollars in four roads, not counting the cap;talization, but in four roads the capital stocks which represents only a pDrtion of. the capitalization of the roads is aggregated eighteen millions of dollars. Of that eighteen millions of dollars twelve millions of dollars is owned by the citizens of Georgia. These gentlemen, selected from their fellow citizens for their integrity and private worth, come before yOu as trustees under the laws of Georgia to protect the high trusts that have been imposed upon them and to invoke the General Assembly of the State of Georgia to do their ce8tui que trust justi'ce. They cannot speak upon this floor. They cannot stand here as I do and protest against the intolerable and colossal injury that is inflicted upon them. They can but go to the members and speak to them. They come up here before the committees of the General Assembly and give in their evidence. They can but call your attention to the reports they have made to their cestui que trustr from time to time pledging their honor and fidelity to the truth and correctness of those reports. When they come up here before you they come by the invocation of the courts of Georgia. They c01)'1e turned from the courts of the United States to the General Assembly of the State of Georgia instructed there to get their relief by a change in the law. That is their attitude when they come here and I say, out upon any attempt of the demagogue or the slanderers to impugn the character of the men who stand in an attitude'like this before the General Assembly of the

58
State of Georgia. They come to the Legislature and how are they met? They are met by the declaration that this whole business of making rules and regulations and rates is a legislative question and that there can be no appeal from the decision of the Commissioners because the Constitution provides the legislative, executive and judicial departments shall be distinct. Is that not the argument that is presented? They say ea; necessitate the work of the Commissi.on is legislative and therefore the courts cannot interfere with it. I deny it and say that if the work of the Commission was legislative under the decision of Judge Woods in the Tilley case or by the decision of the Supreme Court in the 70th Georgia could their work stand for a moment. I quote from the language of your own Supreme Court and the same language of the subcommittee quoted in their repcrt on this subject. The courts say expressly; The courts draw expressly a distinction between the delegation of legislative power and the mere executive power or the mere administrative power and they say that the right to make rates, rules and regulations is not a legislative power, that if it was a legislative power. the attempt to delegate it to any Board of Commissioners would be unconstitutional and void. But because it is not legislative power, because it is not abdication on the part of the General Assembly of the great duties which the voice of the people of Georgia imposed upon them they cannot do it. Now then, if it is not a .legislative power what is it? Here is what they say. I quote from page eleven of .the report of the sub-committee: " In our judgment, says the court, the delegation to the Commissioners of the po'wer to make rules from time to time (that is the opinion of the coLlrt and the language also of the sub-committee.)" In our judgment the delegation to the Commissioners of the power" to make rules from time to time" does not exhaust this constitutional power, because it is held by the Supreme Court it the' case of the Georgia Railroad et al. vs. Smith et al., Railroad Commissioners et al., 70 Ga., p. 699. "The difference between the power to pass a law and the power to adopt rUles and regulations to carry into effect a law 1),1ready passed is apparent and strikingly great, and this. we understand to be the distinction recognized by the courts as the true rule in determining whether or not in such cases a legislative power is granted. The former would be unconsticutional, while the latter would not."
If the legislative power was granted the act would be unconstitutional. As it is not granted the act is not unconstitutional. Then, I say, that under the decision of the Supreme Court of. Georgia, the highest court of the State; that if it was legislative it could not exist for a moment. It would be unconstitutional. Then if their act is not legislalative where does your argument stand? I go right back from this point to the first point that I made when we are sent to the General Assembly of Georgia we are sent here to get the law amended to meet the exigencies of the case and not to have rates made by the General Assembly of Georgia. Then to show you that this is the meaning, the decision itself goes on to say as I have already repeated, that the pres-

59
ent law is merely experimental. 70th Georgia 699. "That it may need amendment is most probable, indeed an experiment so new and untried would be exceptional if it were perfect in its very inception." I plant myself upon the position I have assumed. I say that Judge Woods decided that the railroads should go to the General Assembly of Georgia to get the law changed. I say thl!t the Supreme Court of Georgia has decided that the original law was experimental and that we need amendments from time to time to meet the necessities arising from its administration. I say that both of the decisions upon this point are precisely within the meaning and spirit of the Constitution of the State of Georgia which provides expressly that it is the duty of the General Assembly to pass laws from time to time and when it provides, in entering upon this great field of legislative labor that it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass laws from time to time, will you, Senators, in the discharge of your obligations, hold that it was the duty of the legislature to pass one law, an experiment in all its attributes, and in all its relations, and to make that law fixed and inviolable without regard to the ruin it has wrought? I say no. I say the only decision which you have to rely on and the Constitution, which seems to be the aegis unCler which the opponents of this bill try to shelter themselves speak in thunder tones, no. It is your duty to pass laws from time to time as the exigencies arise. Am I not right'? Is that not the result of the decis-
ions under this proper interpretation of the Constitution 01 Georgia?
"Ve come next to the appeal to the Governor. I have already alluded to that and to the theory of those who oppose this bill. The al;gument is a fela de se, thcre is nothing in it. They say the courts Qannot interfere because it is a legislative question, and the constitution says that the legislative cannot interfere with the executive or the judicial branch If the argument is good that the judiciary cannot interfere because of tl,e constitutional inhibition the same constitutional inhibitioneidsts between the legislath:e.lll1d ex.ecutive powers. The Se.n,ator from the 25th answers his own proposition, if the judiciary caunot interfere'then the executive cannot interfere. You caunot get' a,,:,ay from it. It is irresistible. The same in hibition applies' to the one'that applies to the other, and the argument of the Senator from the Twenty~f1fthfor an appeal of that kind falls to the ground. I have already discussed his appeal to the legislature.
The Senator went on further to say, as I uur.lerstood him, that there was an appeal to the courts, that it was a recognized fact of every man. on both sides, as existing at present, therefore he says what are you arguing for. I am going to discuss the questiou of appeal as it exists at present and as the promoters of this measure desire it to exist, and I invoke the attention of the Senators in. the elaboration of this point. How does this so-called appeal to the courts exist itt present? How are the railroads "to reach the courts under the present law? Upon the fnce of the act there is no provision for appeal. Indirectly the act assum'es and the decisions say that the rates, rules and regulations made by the

60
Railroad Commission shall be sufficient, (and the courts have considered that to mean prima facie evidence), but in order for the railroads to get to the courts what is to be done? The Commission make a system of rates, they pass a rule, (I forget the number of the provision), that the rate fixed by them shall be the maximum rate. The law provides that for any violation of a rule or regulation under certain contingen~ies a penalty of from one to five thousand dollars shall be inflicted. What do you call this? Is it not an imaginary right of appeal on the part of the railroad from the commission law as it exists at present? In order to get the right of appeal they have got to violate a rule or regulation, and when the Commission call them up for the violation of that rule or regulation and say they must make redress and they refuse it in order to get into the courts, the very law itself imposes upon them a penalty for thc violation of a rule or regulation. In order to get at the courts, even by this indirect manner, to test the question whether they have violated the law of Georgia, by making an unjust discrimination or by charging unjust and unreasonable rates, when that very law has said that the rates, rules and regulations of the Commission shall be prima facie evidence, they have got to 'subject themselves to these intolerable penalties. .N at in one instance, Senators, but if they violate one set of rules there may be a hundred or a thousand cases that might arise against a railroad corporation for one single violation of that set of rates. All the dJ,ferent individuals have the right of redress. That is, the railroad can be punished' by the infliction of the intolerable penalties in every individual instance. That is the right of appeal as it exists at the present day.
:Mr.Thornton-It' it is so' difficult for the railroads to get an appeal under the law as it no"w exists, why not reduce the penalty?
Mr. Falligant-I will answer the Senator in the language of the Railroad Oommission. Because I think there is a better way, there is a more legal way, a more just way, a more constitutional way. Because I believe in adequate penalties when the law is just.. I b,ell.eve .that the Constitution of Georgia has said. that the penalties shall be adequate to prevent the violation of the law, but in answer to the Senator from the Twenty-Fourth, I say that I do 'not ask that method to be adopted, because the Railroad Commission of the State of Georgia,after carefully and elaborate(y looking into the question, have provided a wiser and a better way. Many quotations have been made frol)l the various reports of the Railroad uommissionon this subject. In evel'y instance, up to 1885, it has been shown to you that they advised the, Legislature to grant this right of appeal. I call your attention to what they say. This is the mosl, elaborate report that they have made, wherein, after spending many months upon the subject, they have discussed all the problems involved, and here is what they say should be done. I read from page 141 of the report made to the Governor May the 1st, 1881. 1 call your attention, because, Senators, the advice of the Commissioners, so far as appeal is concerned, is almost III the very terms of the law that is before

61
you now. I want you to listen to it. Many objections have already been removed. The main objection that has been made to this bill, that is the Superior Court had the right to grant a supersedeas to control the rates fixed by the Commission has been removed. The burden of proof in every instance is thrown on the railroad company. I appeal to you, who,.in your good judgment, honestly signed that minority report, that, as the leading objection has bee~ removed. won't you support the bill as it is? I invoke your attention to this, because, if you support this bill, you are listening to and carrying out the appeal of the Georgia Railroad Commission to the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, in its report to the Governor. Read it I will. and I hope you will listen to every word:
"The remedy, so far as the citizen is concerned, is far better than it was prior to 1879. The remedy for the railroad, even now without change of the act, is far better than the eitizens' ever was, but it is capable of some improvement and should be perfected as far as possible. The remedy is chiefly declaratory with some amendments of a declaratory sort, showing the mode of proceedings for convenience and adaptation the -act stands. The Tilley case has ploughed and crossed-ploughed the whole field of Objections, but in vain. In the provision by which the rates of the Commission were made sufficient evidence, that term sufficient, has been construed to mean simpiy prima facie, in accordance with the views of both parties, so construed by counsel for complainant and counsel for defendants. One remaining point of objection has been re~oved by the adoption by the Commission of a rule as to notices, which settles the mode of proceeding more satisfactorily. Thus the strong features of the law referred to in our first report as thumb-screws has been so construed as largely obviate the objections, and allow to the railroads their desired day in court. It remains to make the provisions for appeal more complete and satisfactory. As the law stands the action of the Commission is made prima facie evidence of what rates are reasonable and just; let it so continue until the contrary is decided, but provide for exceptions to it. In case of dissatisfaction with the action of th"e Commission, let any pay party interested, whether citizen or city or railroad, file exceptions against the same, specifying the grounds of such exception as if to a report by a Master in Chancery to the court in which they are filed.
If filed by a citizen, city, or community, let it be in the name of the State for the use of A., B., vs. Railroad Com,pany, in the county in which an action would lie for any excessive charge. If filed by a railroad company', let it be the. . , . . . Railroad Company vs. the State of Georgia. Perhaps best filed at the Capitol, the situs of the State authority; the State granting leave for such a proceed"ing.
When the exceptions are filed, let it be the duty of the Railroad CommissioE to certify their action in the particulars complained of, with any other action explanatory thereof, ana any comments or remarks they may think proper to submit, showing the grounds of their decision."

H2

Showing that after its deliberation on the whole subject, the (Jommis-

sion thought it right even' to go to a jury. They say:

"If the parties waive a jury, let the proceedings be at Chambers.

The Attorney or Solicitor-General to represent the State, if defendant.

Party complainant to represent his own case; and:the Court to give such

damages as it may deem just, as in claim, or other like cases for a pro-

ceeding: found to be frivolous or vexaJious."

,

N ow, Senators, what have you to say to that matter? How ca'n you

resist this appeal when it is an improvement of the express recommend-

ation of the Commission itself? An improvement in every respect

For this bill provides, in the first place, that the railroad-they don't'

suggest in their report that there shall be no supersedeas to the decision

of the Commission, but on the other hand they say the decision shall

stand until it is reversed, and it may be reversed by the court to which

you go. This bill goes further and snys the Oommission having estab-

lished a rate, upon a hearing, that rate shall stand without supercedeas until the fi~al decision, so that the right of the court to take away the

supersedeas is completely removed, and the decision of the Commission

stands. Also, it is an improvement in another respect: In order to

meet the difficulties or expense that the citizen might have in proving

that the rates are 'unjust and unreasonable, thl bringing of the suit will

assert that, and the appeal. puts the burden of proof upon the railroads,

to show that the rates are just and reasonable; so that the citizen is re-

lieved of all this burden and expense. The very assertion that a wrong

has been put upon him makes a prima facie case, and the railrcrad is

is brought into court with the burden of proof upon it. Is not that an

improvement? And another improvement: This suggestion of the

Commission, so elaborately prepared, provides that the parties shall

represent themselves, and at their own expense. What would this bill

do? In order to protect this very class of people that some of the Sen-

ators are so ardent to protect, it says that they shall be represented by

the officers of the State-the Solicitor General. Th" provision in refer-

ence to appeal to the court is almost identical, and even the costs thej11-

selves, in the discretion of the court, can be put on the railrolld com-

pany. I stand here reading you the suggestion of the Railroad Com-

mission themselves as to what is the proper course for the protection of

the property-rights of the citizen, and I say that we havc given you the

bill in pursuance of the recommendations of that Commission, superior

in its advantages to the people of Georgia to the recommendation of the

Railroad Commission themselves. That is my reply to the Senator from

the Twenty-fifth. Is it not a full reply? Is it not an. adequate reply?

Does it not meet the question fully and fairly?

Now, coming directly to this amendment of the Senator of the Thirty-

Eighth, remember what I have said about the difficulties of this appeal:

how it is environed by these tremendous penalties which the law has

imposed. I will admit for the sake of the argument, that which I deny,

that under the constitution and laws of Georgia, the action of the Rail-

63
road Commission in making these rates, rules and regulations, is a legistive function, that they are acting in a legislative capacity. You remember my argument, based upon the constitution, that it could not be a legishltive function because it would be unconstitutional. For the sake of the argument I say that I will assume that it is a legislative function; that tfey are doing the work Of the Legislature when they make these rates, rules and regulations. If that be so, the objection might apply that the judiciary should not, interfere. But I say that the purpose of this bill is to eliminate from the case this very question. When the railroad makes the rates with the right of appeal on the part of the road, or the citizen. from the decision of the Commission, don't you see 'that the legislative function is aliminated j that neither the Leg-islature nor the Commission makes the rates, and the legislative function, if it be one, is eliminated. and the ,whole question cOlJ;les up as it should corne whim a case is made before the Coll1mission, in a judicial way, and the Commission reviewing- the evidence from both parties with fairness and impartiality, can decide the case as may be j but if you adopt the amendment of the Senator of the Thirty-Eighth, what do you do ? You put us back. as far as this constitutional question is concerned, just where we wcre before. You give the right to the Commission to make the rates over again. If you put the McBride amendment on it, what would be the case? AJJ the railroads of Georgia tender their schedule of rates to the Oommission. The Commission say we alone can decide what are just and reasonable rates. We will chuck these schedules in the pigeon hole, and give them the same rates they had before j that is what we consider just and reasonable.
'l\ir, McBride-Do you say that the Commission would simply pigeon hole the rates?
Mr. FaJJigant-It was a suppositious case I gave. l\ir. McBride-Don't that proceed upon the assumption that the Commission are unfair men? Mr. FaJJigant-I have given you an example. Suppose they put-exactly the same rates upon them? They make tee same rates under the power still preserved in this law, and then subject the old system of appeal to this very constitutional objection, according to their amendment. My idea is to reach the same result in a different way, and eliminate from the whole question thib" Constitutional issue. That is our objection to the amendment of the Senator from the Thirty-Eighth, and, as suggested to me by the Senator from the Forty-Second (and it is a point that has been made in the course of this debate): If the railroads have got to appeal, under this amendment, what .will they appeal to? To an impartial court? Not at aJJ. They will have to appeal to a body 6f men who have already given their judgment. They will not only have to ca1J upon them to settle a case between themselves and, those who are complaining, but to reverse their own judgment. Is that impartial or flir? I don't think so. Mr. McBride-I ask this question: If that same objection wouldn't

64
apply to an application for an injunction to a Judge of the Superior Court, who, upon the presentation of a bill, awards a temporary restraining order?
Mr. Falligant-I don't think it is necessarily so. I don't think any of the objections apply to a case of that kind. In reply to the Senator from the Thirty-Eighth, I say that the analogy is not complete. A case of that kind would be decided under the rules of law, and when'a party representing an injunction, pro or con, went before a Judge, he would go before one who was controlled by preced,ents and decisions, and the general principles of law; but, in this case, before a party who is in the position as they declare, of a Master in Chancery, or a Board of Arbitrators originally. But were we to come to them in this impartial way, and then go to the courts from the decision, the analogy might be more complete, and we would get law and justice-Stare decisis-controlled by the decisions of the common law and the courts for centuries back. We would get decisions controlled by precedent, because made 'by men who are lawyers and who would be controlled by principles of law. But I say the analogy does not apply. Then the difficulty of. appealing from a whole system. I say let the railroads make the rates. Let the appeal come according to the very advice of the Commissioners themselves-from the citizens or from the community to the Commission. Let them pass upon what they are asked to pass upon. Let the case come up and be decided by the courts of the country, and when it comes back to the Commission, as it must come, what is the result? The Commission is empowered by this act to make such rates, rules and regulations as they may think necessary and proper under the decisions in the premises. So that all their power is still retained to them under this act, and the right to make rules and regulations which would meet this case in all its relations lind in all its precedents. Again I say it is not fair. It is not right, to hold to the unconstitutionality of appeal in one instance and to its constitutionality in another. If you are going to plant yourself upon constitutional provisions, stand by them. But one of the Senators says that you have the right of appeal, while another is of the opinion that you have no right to go into court because you have a better appeal. Stand by one argument or the other. One argument or the other must be right or wpong. Stand by them.' Make them in accordance with the laws of Georgia. If they are wrong and, you will be discharging your duty as Senators of the State of Georgia. Now can't you see the necessity for a change? Haven't I shown that the laws and decisions of the courts of Georgia tell you that.this Act is experimental, and it must be revised? Haven't I shown you that the Constitution of your State, under which you act, says it is your duty to pass laws from time to time. Here, they have gone fo the Courts, and the Courts have told them to come to the General Assembly of Geor,gia for relief. Are you going to turn a deaf ear to their appeals; not in their own behalf-the railroad companies are not the sufferers-but in behalf of their cestui que trusts-the true owners of the property. I

65
say that, upon the argument I have made, you have the right to pass this law.
Here, again, we are met with the declaration that there have been no abuses j that the roads have not been injured in any respect; that whenever they have appealed to the Commission they have got relief. I think I have answered those arguments fully. I think I have shown you how the commission began below a living rate and gradually camc up when they were askcd to relieve this case, because it was a case a vinculo mortii8, and thcy had to do It. If they wcnt any way they had to go upwards. Recurring llgain to the case he has presented of relief in reference to classes C, D, and F, I, will st!lte further in reference to this, that the roads of the St\,\te of Georgia were appealing from 1883 to 1885 upon that subject. A period of nearly two years before they got any relief. I reiterate what that relief was: That from a system of just and reasonable rates, so-called by the Commission, and established as just and reasonable by them previous to 1883, on account of the great railroad war of the west, they reduced the rates in Georgia fifty per cent-fifty per cent-and this so-called recognition of the rights of the railroads was only coming back toward the originally just and reasonable mtes-twenty-five per cent. on some classes and ten per cent. on others-so that the benefit altogcther was hardly calculable, or very slight, comparatively, to the roads. After they had been knocking for nearly two years at that door for relief, you tell me this was prompt relief? I do not think so.
This subject ought to be discussed upon proper principles. The Senatorfrom the Twenty-Fifth claimed that we ought to discuss it as jurors, and I thought at the time it was a very remarkable assumption whe~ he claimed that the Legislature could not usurp the Judicial functions. While we have only the legislative capacity, he asks us to constitute ourselves a Judicial body and discuss this qucstion! Senators, I say that we ought to discuss these questions on proper principlcs. When we consider the great interests involved, it is not It matter of dickering over a few dollars or a few eents. We should discuss it as statesmen, with the past, present and future of Georgia in view.
A great deal has been said in perhaps an eloquent, or, at least, in a declamatory way, in reference to Georgia. Some of the exponents of a doctrine which is destructive, in my estimation, of the high commercial interests of Georgia, have proclaimed their love for their grand old mother State. It depends upon what you are discussing. In one instance our grand old State is the procuress of crime, in the next she is the representative of eternal justice and eternal truth. I see that shc has written upon her forehead the principles that should control her -WIsdom, justice, and moderation. These are the foundations of her public welfarp. This is the firm and eternal rock upon which she has stood for a century and a half, and the storm of trouhle, of war, of tempest, of misfortune, and the seas may beat upon her, but she stands there, as she has stood in the past-eternal in right, etel'llal in justice,
5

66
eternal in wisdom and moderation. I confess, Senators, that I have had my heart as a Georgian stirred and shocked by what I have heard, traducing the character of my native State. I have seen her in times' of trouble; she might have been like Niobe-all tears-but she did not stand weeping. She met the issue with that firm grandeur that has ever characterized her as a people, as the proudest citizens of the poudcst commonwealth of the land. I remember when, standing upon this very soil, I could look around me and see the ruins of my mother State. I thought then that a land without ruin was a land without memories; that a land without memories was a land without liberties. A land that we:trs the laurel crown may be fair to see, but twine a few sad cypress leaves around her brow and be that land beautyless and bleak, it becomes lovely in its sacred coronet of sorrow and wins the sympathy of the heart and of history. Crowns of roses fade, crowns of thorns enduN. Crucifixes take deepest hold on humanity. The prayers of hate are transient. They pass away and are forgotten. The suffering of right is gnwened deepest on the chronicles of nations. I say I have seen her in the midst of desolation and ruin like this. I have groaned with her in her sorrow and her affliction, but Senators there is a desolation deeper than that inflicted by the gory hand of war, there is a sorrow and a desolation which one doe5 not even feel when he passes under the yoke of subjection. There is a shame and a disgrace that can attach, alas, longer than the temporary marks of ruin where armies have trodden; it is when the vital principles of a people are sapped; it is when listening to the artful appeals of the demagogue who has no ambition buthis own aggrandizement, respect is lost for the rights of property. They say because this man or corporation is rich I can take away from lIim .under the forms of law. The deepest and darkest humiliation that you could inflict upon your native State would be to chroniclize in the statutes of your State an infamy of this kind, that the property rights of those who, invoked by the people of Georgia to come among them with the pledge of their aid and protection, with the pledge that those who ale appointed over their property shall be the managers of that property, with the pledge that they shall hav.e a legitimate income upon that property, inviting them to your borders; I say that when they have come here and huilt up your mountain homes, where trup greatness sits like an eagle upon its eyrie, when they have linked you with the great ocean that waters the shores of the State of Oglethorpe. when they have made you all that a people aspires to be, and all that is produced by civilization of one kind interweaving itself with the civilization of another, and ail hallowed by the glorious inspirations of the religion of the living God; I say, when their humanizing influence has produced all this result, in bringing together the interchange of thought, when they have linked you by ties that are sometimes almost stronger than human, and have made your State what it is now, great and powerful and the glory and .the pride of our southern land, carrying upon her brow the imperial diadem of equal power, equal strength, equal majesty, with any other

67
State upon i'hl. broad con tinoot, <JlWl you dooy them the sjm'P}e~t right~ that you give, as I suid before, to a pig, or a horse, or a eow? Can you do it? Are you /-1;oing to do it on constitutional quibbles that are breathed away like the cobweb and disappear like the early dew of morning, or are you going to stand here in the attitude of statesmen linking yourselves with the past of Georgia and looking through the horroscope of the future to her splendid promise and say we will stand by what our fathers said when they built the splendid structure, we will be controlled by wisdom, we will be controlled by justice, we will be controlled by moderation. When this legislation was brought about, it seems to me that the structure of Georgia's greatness had been forgotten. It was a radical change to cut up the roots of everything that had existed before and that had gone on and prospered Georgia for nearly haIfa century. It wa& a new and untried experiment, and w yo~r courts hava called it. Is it not wise to look back, to recede when you feel that you have been injudicious? Other States have receded from their radical legislation upon the subject and Ilil.adetheir laws more moderate. Tennessee has wiped them from her iitatute books. Alabama has modified them so that her Commission is almost advisory. South Carolina has done the same thing, and Whe<Il an appeal is made to her courts it is made by parties properly before the Oommission, and goes up in regular succession to the courts. They have tried it there and it works properly and fully. The nailroad Commil1Sion them~elves have been advocating this system from year to year, llnd in trheir llppellls they have almost evolved the very language of this bill, and only now when their powers are assumed to be threatened do the Commission present these constitutional objections. When I say to YOR that the great Governor of Georgia, whose constitutional duty it is, during his administration, to look into the interests of the St!\te of Georgia, and advise you from time to time "for the good of the State, what is best for her iIlterests, commercial and otherwise, when I say that he has come before you and told you that this kind of legislation ought to be passed, giving you similar advice as tlmt of the Hailroad Commission of Georgia, are you going to turn away from him as taking ex-parte view of the ease, and corral him with the sub-committee against whom the same charge is made, or are you going to look like statesmen into the whole broad question and decide it with consummate wisdom as you ought to do, listening to no appeals of passion or prejudice, but in the clear, calm light of reason and justice, "doing unto others as you would have them to do unto you?"
HON. F. H. OOLLEY OF THE TWENTy-EIGHTH DIWrRI-Qi'l'.
In the report of the Senate proceedings of the 12th inst., the beginning of the argument of Senator Colley on the nuilroud Oommission bill was unint(mtionally omittcd. He made the concluding speech bcfore adjournment and his remarks then are presented below. His conelu~ion, on !l'flMsembliMg, has already been published:

68
Mr. Colley said: The questions submitted to the Senate by the substitutc, and thc amendments offcrcd to it, have already been fully discussed. I hopc that the importance which attaches to these questions will be my excuse if I detain you for a few moments while I give my views upon them.
It secms to me that when we approach the discussion ofa question such as we have now before us, we should do so in a calm and careful manner, as we would approach any other important business proposition, or any proposition in which are involved very grave rights which bclong to a large and respectable portion of our fellow-citizens and residents of our State, and in which are also involved a great many interests of the State at large.
At the very outset it seems to me we should lay aside all bias, Wll should lay aside all prejudice, and we should endeavor to come together upon some conclusion which would benefit the interests of the property holders, and of the State also. It seems to me that when the Senator from the 25th W'IS making his argument here, that he had not accomplished this result. It seems to me that he could not have made a more intemperate argument-if I ma7 use the expression without a.ny disrespect to him-if there had been a public invader upon the shorcs of Georgia, and he was endeavoring to stir up the people against the invader.
N one of us can impregnate any law with our individual ideas; in very rare instances (except where the law is of local character) there is no man that can take any public act upon our statute books and say that it is his own idea, without any mingling of his ideas with those of others. It seems to me that there is some objection to the law which we now endeavor to have passed by the Senate. I agree with the Senator from the Twentieth, for whose opinions I have always entertained the highest regard and respect, that if we could put another commission above this one and make the appeal upward instead of downward, it would be better; but Senators, can we do anything of that kind? I ask you, in this particular case, could we persuade the Legislature to grant us the necessary salaries? Can we get them to put three more men in power? Can we get them to go to all the expense of 1,he machinery of1,his higher commission when we have these jury trials, which are considered necessary for all otliffi' cases, and for the adjudication of all other matters? It is needless for me to tell the Senator, for he knows it as well as I do, that we cannot get them to do anything of that kind. Right at the point of making the salaries they would stop. Right there there would be a balk in this matter. The next question is whether we shall adopt the next best method and make these changes in the present law. It seems to me that the fact that there should be some change in the law is beyond controversy. The Senator has said that he is opposed to any change whatever. In doing so he has gone against the opinion of the Railroad Commissioner;; themselves, and against the opinion of everyone else who has investigated this matter. They practically claim that we have ]1laced this

69
Commission upon our shoulders like the old man of the sea, and we are ridden by them in spite of all our efforts to throw them off. The Senator, strange to say, has not investigated the other side of this question. In spite of what the Commissioners have said, he says they were mistaken, and there is no need of a change. Senators, I say that we do need it. If we look at this question merely in the abstract, without any considprations of its opcrations, cven though it was intended to bc just in its inception without debate, I would be unalterably opposed to its provisions, because, as has so often been said by speakers upon this floor, it is contrary to the very genius of our government and our history. Where have we upon our statute books such a law as this? If we introduce a wedge like this, where will be the limit to such legislation? When it has so affected the rights of the people withlll the borders of your State, can we say this law is right and just? No man will come here and say it would not be wrong and unjust in regard to himself. I do not say that railroads are not different from individual property, but when their rights are in controversy they should have the same rights, and . have the same tribunals that are provided for individuals. Such laws as the~e we have, now are, I believe, without paral1el in the world.
The Czar of al1 the Russias may issue his ukase and tel1 his subjects what to do, and he is the only one who is capable of having such authority as these gentlemen have under their legislative powers, Madam De Stael, I believe, once said that" Russian Government is a despotism tempered by assassination." The Commission have not even that to fear. No control is placed over them whatever. The Senator argues that they have already the right of appeal. Do you find it so? Where is the proof of that argument? The Supreme Court in deciding the point has said that we have the right but it is so trammeled by penalties that attach to it that it does not amount to any remedy whatever, that is-the remedy.at the common law. Because going to the courts to ob.tain this they are subject to the penalties which almost produce destruction itself. ~ow,'Senators, I say they cannot appeal to the courts. Then, he says, that they can appeal to the Governor. What a farce that would be. When, for instance, a little railroad in the State of Georgia finds there are certain charges upon them that are gradual1y reducing their income they must appeal to the Governor to have these people displaced. What would occur then? Would he say for an error of judgment you must go out of office? Would he consid er that a grave infraction of the Commissioners' duty? We must not consider that he would for a single instance remove the Commissioners merely upon such an occurrence as that. But he says, if the Govcrnor don't do it you must appeal to the Legislature. That is his construction of the decision of ,Justice Woods. He says you must appeal to this Legislature to remove this Commission. If the Railroad find fault with the Railroad Commission they must impeach thcm if possible.
Many of you who were here in '78 and '79 know what labors were imposed by those impeachment trials, and it would be tantllmount to

70
ooe of ftlose to try to irr)peach these Commissioners, beeause 1\11 these
. matters would come wp in conncction with it, lind would be neeesslirv
~~~
There is one place where this Railroad Oommission is especially objeetionable, and that is with regard to the rights they have to make the rates at the very beginning. I don't belicve it is right that the persons who are to try a ease should first make a pre,judgment, and I have here upon that subject the remarks of the Railroad Commission' themselves: " It is true that the Oommission itself is always open for a new trial, and that without formality. But aside altogether from pride of opinion or other fault an error of judgment is not easily cured in those who make it, and so an appeal to some outside tribunal is usually the safest mode of securing a fair rehearing."
This is the reason we have always thought it necessary to protect the different tribunals of our State against vices or prejudice. When we place a Judge upon any bench within the limits of the State we surround him with every barrier iIi order to protect him fully from prejudice or anything of this kind. Not only do you find that to be the case, but you find in every instance that these rules are enforced and endeavored to be made binding upon all, and the purest of our Judges have insisted upon these rules. If you go to one of them to talk he may be courteous, but firmly he says I cannot hear you talk of this ease because I wi11 have to sit in trial upon it, and he wi11 not allow you to talk to him about it. Here in this case we find that these Oommissioners meet in solemn conference, and have all the evidence before them far formulating judgments, then they tell us we must go to them afterwards and convince them that they are in error. It is not by such a law as this that we have ever surrounded the Judges of our State. Lumpkin, Crawford, and a]] of our highest citizens were surrounded by barriers prevmting them from taking any interest in casell. Take the Judge of the Superior Oourt. If a client hilS come and stated his oase to him and he has rendered an opinion upon It he wi11 refuse to sit upon that CHse, as is we]] suggested, even if his name is marked upon the docket he will have nothing to' do with it. I submit ta you, is it possible that these gentlemen composing Lhe Commission can be placed upon a higher plane than these distinguished citizens of our State; than Lumpkin. Nesbet and Orawford, or than oth(;r men who hHve made the history of our State i11ustrious. To he put upon an equality with them is all that they can ask.
I do not wish to detain you long in an investigation of this kind, but it seems to me that the Senator from the Twenty-Fifth is certainly incorrect in his idea that this is any attempt to take away any powers of the Railroad Commission, that may be exercised properly. What wi11 happen from the continuation of the present law I do not know, but certainly I do believe that it threatens the direst results to the railroad interests of the State.
It is stilted here that the eXMtions of the Railroad Commission hiP/I)

71
reduced, a-ooording to his own argument, almost to an infinitestima.l "mount the income of. these roads. His argument is based upon from these raports and figures, and Mr. Wallace is doing the very same thing he did to-day. The Commission ought to, as they were invited to do, personally examine these railroad corporations, as did this sub-committee, and he can come to no correct conclusion otherwise; he can arrive at nothing that is correct unless he does something of that kind. You see how easily he is mistaken in regard to particular matters. The Senator from the Twenty-fifth arrives at his conclusions from the figures of Mr. Wanace and no others whatever. He goes on and says that he has only examined those .!igures, that he has not examined the answer by Mr. Raoul made to that committee, nor does he care to examine it, he says. HeglJts his figures from the Railroad Commisilion, and therefore they are correct.
Take the railroad superi~endent, who is paid five or ten thousand dollars salary. How does he get at the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Wallace? He has to. go over every foot of the road. He has to sM every particle of it before he can come to any conclusion; but we have , here gentlemen who can sit here in their office and come to these conclusions upon !I mere examination of these figures. If that were all that were necessary what would be the necessity or reason for paying a superintendent five or ten thousand dollars a year for doing all this work? Why is it necessary when he can get one of these ski11ful gentlemen to superintend all the business, as it is tabled in his office? That is sufficient answer to the gentleman from the Twenty-fifth. The safest answer to all is that the people who own the stock are getting no income. This. is like the Methodist minister in my town, who went to call on Mr. Winfield. Going in the gate he said; "Brother Winfield, please keep off the dog." Mr. Winfield replied; "Col'lle in; the dog won't bite you." The minister said: "Brother Winfield, he has done done it." Those people are suffering from it, and who are told that the railroads ~e making so much, can they feel where it hurts? :Now I say, it has already prevented .the infiux of capital in our State and the investment of property in these railroads. I do not speak from heresay in regard to that. In one instance, at least, I am perfectly acquainted, and have information upon the subject that I know is entitled to credit. In my own district, which I represent, this insta)1ce occurred: The Savannah river lies through one of the finest portions of the State of Georgia, where we have fertile valleys and productive hills and a good population. We have everything in the way of mining facilities, productive lands and everything of that kind, and which should make a great and prosperous community, except the railroad facilities. The peopl" there, some three or four years ago, raised a sum of money which capitalists told them was sufficient to enable them to complete a road, but with the operation of this Railroad Commission it has been completely and finally stopped unless a change be made. Those people who have w/llited so long for the development of their fine country are by the

72
operation of this law unable to enjoy the advantages which the balance of us have. This is only one of thc mllny instances. I talked with Oolonel W. P. Price in regard to this subject. He lives in Dahlonega. Above that town is onc of the finest portions of our State. It has every advantage of fertility of soil, of a salubrious climate, of mining and quarrying interests. For the development of that property the people endeavored to build a road, they put everything they could into the enterprise and carried it as far as they could and .what was the result? Their own money gave out and they had to stop, and that is to-day the case with tbe Georgia Midland. There will not be enough money subscribcd and you will have to go to outside investors to carry it through. These people that I speak of went to the North for help to build thei l' road and succeeded in bringing arepresentative here who was perrectly delighted with the resources of the country, and the people, and the climate. He represented to the people who sent him here that they should undertake the enterprise and finish it, becanse they could make great profit out of it. He was told to come here and examine the eommission law of the State of Georgia. He did so and informed his correspondents, and they at once notified him to finally close up all negotiations in rcgard to the matter.
HON. T. B. OABANISS, OF THE TWENTy-SECOND DISTRIC'l'.
1 had not intended to say anything on this subject, at this time, but I feel tbat I would not be discharging my duty to the people I represent, as well as the whole people of the State of Georgia, did I not express my dissent from the proposed amendment. To arrive at the effect of the proposed amendment, let us examine the provisions of the bill. The first section proposes to take from the Railroad Oommission the ratemaking power and confer it on the ruilroads themselves. Upon any dissatisfaction of any pommunity, city, town, or individual, upon the proper petition presented to the Railroad Uommission, the question comes up for decision by that Oommission between the railroad and the complainant. The Railroad Oommission decides the question, and then if either party is dissatisfied, the railroad, the person or the community, an appeal is made to the court of the county where tbe question of difference arises. Now the proposed amendment is to cut off this right of appeal. . If it succeeds; the bill is not worth the paper on which it is written, because it remands the question to the same position it nowoccupies. In other words, it gives the Railroad Commission arbitrary power to fix the rates that all the railroad" of Georgia shall charge. is it right that the railroads, as well as the people, should have the right of appeal? What say the Uommission? Our present Railroad Ocmmission, May 15, 1884, in their ninth semi-annual report, used these words:
"We have always thought that the parties claiming to have been injured by the ruling of the Oommission, as the law now stands, have a remedy in the courts."

73
That's what we say. "That where a party is aggrieved by an overcharge of the railroad, suit can be had in the courts and recovery had." Our proposition is merely cumulative, as the gentleman from the First says. But this is the language of the Railroad Commission:
"But this remedy, as the law now stands, is not easily available. We have favored and still favor such a change in the law as would authorize a direct appeal to the courts from the decision of the Commission."
This is the very thing which we propose in this bill; that i", a direct appeal from the decisions of the Commission to the courts of the country. But some strange change has come over the spirit of the dreams of this Commission, and they even now go to the extent to claim that the Legislature, which created the Commission, has not the power to alter the laws now in existence,that they are fixed and as unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and they would now have you believe that the created are greater than the creator. Yet as late as 1884, in their semi-annual report, they recommended the very thing which we seek to enact by the passage of this bill. I ask, sir, if it is not right that people who have their money, their all invested in railroad property, should have the same rights which the humblest individual as well as the highest person in the land, can claim, viz: the right to appeal to the courts of the country, established for the adjudication of rights and rectification of wrong? What difference is there between the property of corporations and individuals that one should be de~ied the right to go to the courts? In what does a railroad consist? Is it the iron, the ties, and the locomotives placed thereon? No, sir; these corporations are composed of people who have been formed into a body corporate; they are composed of widows and minors and other people throughout your State, and they have as much rights under the law of our grand old State as any individual. Why should they be denied this right? Is it right, I ask Ilgain, to deny the right of any individual to .appeal to the court of the country? And is it right to deny to the people because they are bound together as a body corporate the same right? As the gentleman from the Thirty-Second well said, it is in our bill of rights that the first duty of our government is protection to life and property. That is the paramount duty of the government and should be impartial and complete. Then, because certain powers are given to railroads in regard to other people's property, for which they get proper compensation, it is claimed that they, the railroads, must be denied ail rights which are common to individuals.
If the amendment of the gentleman from the Twenty-Eighth prevails, the laws will stand practically where they do now, and the rights which these corporations are entitled to under the Constitution of our State, will be denied to them. The other gentlemen tell us they are in favor of some modification of the powers of the Railroad Commission-some change in the present law-yet they say the appeal proposed in this bill will not be of benefit to the railroads. Well, in the absence of any better system of appeal, I ask the gentlemen if they are in favor of

74
giving the railroads the rights they are denied, why not vote for the section as it now stands, if the railroads are satisfied with it, unless they can propo~ something better? If any of them can offer any better system of appeal, I will cheerfully vote with them j but I ask, in the absence of anything better, to insert in lieu of that which is proposed to be stricken, is it not their duty and the duty of all who ask for a modification of the powers of the Commission, to vote for the bill as it now stands, and if it should prove to be impracticable and of no benefit to the railroads or the people, let future legislatures modify it, The law as it now stands, was an experiment, and we have a right to make an experiment in making a change. But I deny the proposition laid down by the Senator from the Thirty-Ninth, that the decisions of the courts will settle nothing; Is it possible that men who are in control of these great corporations are all wanting in discretion, and so wanting in. , sense that where an issue is decided adversely to them that they will coine back to the courts the next day on the same question, merely to be mulcted in large costs and troubled with litigation. The argument proposed by these gentlemen proceeds upon the presumption that these men are wanting in common business sense, and such is not the fact. The first section says this: "That the Commissioners, appointed as heretofore provided, shall be authorized to make such just and reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for preventing unjust discrimination in the transportation of freight and passengers on the railroads of this State, and to that end shall be authorized to make such rules and regulations to designate and fix the proportion of difference in rates of freight and passenger transportation for longer and shorter distances on the same or diife'rent railroads of this State, and to prescribe what shall be their limits of longer and shorter distances." Whena claIm is made that a discrimination is being made by one railroad against a community, here is a rule and regulation that when that question is decided fixing upon a railroad as what constitutes shorter and longer lines, that decision will settle not only as, to one railroad, but as to all other railroads the same question of difference. The bill is inten~ ded for this: I ask you if three men who represent large railroad in terests, now complaining of the burden put upon them bJ the Railroad Commission, can have this much meted out to them by the passage of this bill, as sensible men, and as' men having the interest of those whom they represent at heart, would act in such a way about this multiplication of suits as to ensure a repeal of the law in your succeeding Legislature in 1888, which it is now proposed to give them?
Mr. President-Having cl4-trly established to my mind the right of these railroads to go to the courts, the people on the one hand and the railroads on the other, I ask you to vote for this measure. In other States we see the railroads resort to measures whieh are not proper and right to control the Commission. They may capture your Commission in the way that will build up the railroads and oppress the State. Then the cry will go out throughout the borders of 'your land, through every

75
hamlet and village asking for a modification of the powers of the Railroad Commission and the right of appeal by the people to the courts of the land. Then I say, having to my mind established that it is right and that we have the power to make the changes, the question comes up, is it expedient to do so? Let us look at the present condition of Georgia. What has given her the proud position and helped her to attain the name of the Empire State of the South? Whether she is entitled to it now. is questionable. It is a fact that she wa.~ in advance of sister Southern States in railroad improvements in building a great artery from the borders of Tennessee to the city in which we now are. and in the investment of the money of her citizens in other large lines of the State which developed her resources and brought emigrants from abroad as well as from sister States of the Union, and built up her waste places and made her what she is. Weare told that there have been long lines of railroads built since the establishment of this Commission. The East Tennessee road it is true was built from Macon to Atlanta, from' here to Rome, from thence to Chattanooga. What is the condition of that road to-day? It is bankrupt and in the hands of a receiver. Whether the Railroad Commission produced thIS or not I.will not now stop to discuss, but such is the fact, and virtually the people along the line of that railway, by the appointment of a receiver by a foreign court, are denied the right to go into their own courts and sue for damages for any injuries that may be perpetrated upon them by that corporation.
Mr. Rankin-Is that railroad just alluded to in the hands of a receiver on account of the tariff fixed by the Commission?
Mr. Cabaniss-I do not know, and just stated I would not stop to discuss toot question.
Mr. Rankin-Isn't it cutting the throat of other railroads that are carrying out that tariff?
Mr. Cabaniss--Probably it is. Mr, Maddox-The gentleman suggests tha~ they were cutting the throats of other roads, Why is it that it isn't stopped by the Railroad Commissi.m? Is it not their duty to regulate freights and cut-throat business? Mr. Cabaniss-That is a very pertinent question. I was going on to show th!tt no money has been invested recently in these new railroads of Georgia, except in a few instances, in the building up of narrow gauge branch railroads, such as the North Georgia Railroad. I ask where a single dollar of foreign capital has been brought within 'the State in years past for the building of railroads unless it was by the Marietta and North Georgia Hailroad. I say it is expedient for us to make this change, for I do not wish to see the' progress of my grand old mother retarded. Let her continue to march on as she has in the past. Let foreign capital know that when it is brought here it will be protected. Let our people know that when they invest their capital in railroads their rights shall be secure and sacred as when they invest in manufactures or in any other way. That is the theory and purpose and ought to be

76
the will of the people of the State of Georgia, to protect all classes of the people alike and to afford everybody equal protection under the laws. If that is done and this bill is passed instead of this capital being at home locked up, instead of foreign capital adjoining our borders remain-' ing away from us it will come in, and hundreds of miles of projected railroads will be built within two years after the passage of this bill, in my humble judgment; but as was well said by one of the Senators who preceded me, I cannot imagine a safe, prudent man in this Sfate, much less out of the State, who will put his surplus capital into a corporation that is not to be controlled by officers of its own selection, but by an arbitrary Railroad Commission, whose power is greater than the Czar of Russia's. Repeal or modify this law and the change will be brought about that I describe..
Mr. N orthen-I understand the position of the. gentleman to be that the arbitrary power of the Commission has very much crippled and even destroyed the railroad business in this StaiIJ,. and in that way it prevents the investment or eapital.
Mr. Cabaniss-That is my opinion, sir. Mr. Northen-I desire to ask you this question: If you proceed to establish an appeal from these eommissioners to juries who nre interested against the railroads, as I have already described, what will be the benefit of that appeal to the railroad interest of the country? Mr. Cabaniss-I have tried to anticipate a question of that kind. If the railroads are willing to it why should We object to it? Mr. Northen-We don't. They are satisfied with it. As the gentleman from the Thirty-ninth has stated, we are simply attempting to establish a statute that will operate with justness to both parties in interest. Mr. Cabaniss-The railroads are not afraid to trust the people. There is an express statute that where a county's or eity's interest is involved it does not necessarily disqualify the juries of a city or a county. Upon the polling of jurors as to whether they have direct.or indirect interest as to which p'lrty shall prevail in the suit they ean be set aside, but if all the people of a county should be disqualified in the manner preseribed by law it would only make a change of venue to a neighboring county. The Senators say that a modification is desirable, but they say that this will not benefit them. Letus make the experiment, and "suffieicnt unto the day is the evil thereof." If it is aseertained that the people are so prejudiced that they will do injustiee to the railroads, then in the future the better judgment of succeeding legislatures may give the railroads remedies whieh this Senate is now unnble to suggest.
HON. LEM .TOHNSON, OF THE THIRD DISTRICT.
During Senator Allen's speech he said: It has been stated upon this floor that some of the lumber and naval stores men wanted to make rates with the railroads for tht,mselves, and thonght they could do better than the Commission could, and they were denied that privilege.

77
Mr. Johnson-I think the question ,:ras made before the Railroad Commission, and it was only agreed to between the lumbermen and the railroad, but also by the Commissioners.
Mr. Allen-I think the records will show that the privilege was granted in every case but one, and in that one the railroad refused to agree, and the case was submitted to the Commissioners.
At least on two oceasions the Commission said retire, gentlemen. and make your own contracts, report to us and we will ratify it. I understand that was done. They reported and the Commission made that the rate.
Mr. Johnson-I think that was done as far as the Brunswick and Albany road was concerned. I am satisfied that agreement was made between the Brunswick and Western road and the lumb'llrmen, but it was refused by the East Tennessee road, so we could not make terms. I think that a suggestion was made by Captain Raoul that the lumber business wouldn't admit of the present rate, and proposed to the Commissioners to cut it down 20 per cent., and the Commissiollers a~reed to it.
Mr. Allen-I am obliged to the gentleman for the information, for it establishes this, that the Commissioners are not oppressing the roads, but were allowing them to charge more for lumber than they were willing to take, and the .president of the Central road is operating a greater number of miles of road than any road in Georgia. Is that oppressing the parties? Is that hurting anybody? In the matter of the East Tennessee road they could not agree, then the Commissioners had to fix the rate. But the Commissit>ners gave them the right if they desired it. They said you are in that section of the country, you are ~ealing in that kind of material, you know what it is worth to transport it. You know what these men can pay. Make your own contract an.d we will establish that. Is not that the truth, as stated by the gentleman who is a dealer in lumber? I wish to be right. Do I understand the Senators to say that in the East Tennessee case the Commissioners refused to allow them to make terms?
Mr. Johnson-The officers refused. I don't think the gentleman thoroughly understood my question. I stated a while ago that when we made terms with the railroad men and reduced our rates from the fact that our business would not allow us to pay the rate while the Commission didn't do it, and allowed us to make the contract, we went before the Commissien since then on naval stores which was refused. The result was that a great many men broke by the pperation and went out of business because we didn't get it.
Mr. Allen-Still the proposition is established that the Railroad Commission left the matter entirely in the hands of the gentlemen who were the interested parties. Does this establish that the Railroad Commission are in favor of the people of Georgia. or in favor of the roads? It establishes this: that when the people were appealing to them to have rates reduced, the COlIlmission said this: Gentlemen we believe that this

78
rate is reasonable, and that it must be maintained. Where is thffi"e any preference on the side of the people?
Mr. Johnson-While the gentleman i3 on the lumber rate, I would like to make a statement, and I think I can substantiate every word I say. The rate that was made on lumber was so fixed upon a dsstance ~f 100 or 125 miles that the lumber men of Georgia would have to put a $10 bill on each ( ar load to haul it. That was the first rate they made on lumber.
Mr. Allen-I would ask you, that if when you made a complaint of this to the Oommissioners, if they did not redress your wrong?
Mr. Johnson-Yes, sir; we had to come here; we had a four days fight of it. We showed them that we could not pay the freight.
Mr. Allen~You did not expect the OommissiOl~ers to act igntil'antly, did you, until you had given them the facts or made out a prima facie case?
Mr. Johnson-I would say that weexpected when the rate was made under law, it would be just and reasonll;ble.
HON. D. E. SMITH, OF THE THIRTy-SECOND DISTRICT.
I didn't think, sir, that I would have any thing to say upon this subject at all, there are so many Senators and lawyers better qualified than I am myself to discuss it. I desire to call the attention of the gentlemen, however, to a clause of our Oonstitution which says that the" protection of property is the paramount duty ofgovernment, and should be impartial and complete." That is the law. This is a rIght, and we appreciate it when our property is affected. We have the right to come before the courts and be heard. We have the right to be heard before the Superior Courts of our country, and if we are not satisfied with the decisions of the Superior Oourt we have a right to appeal to a higher tribunal. It is said that corporations have no souls. Well, they have pretty large bodies, and they have the rights of citizens. It is merely a combination of citizens, and should have the rights of citizens. A corporation should have the right of appeal to the tribunals of the country. This is a right that has long been established; yet, here in the State of Georgia, we have an arbitrary tribunal established, from which there is no appeal, and Senators on this floor still propose to deny to railroads the right of appeal, which is a very dear right. The friends of this bill say that these corporations shall have the right to appeal to the courts of the country. Our Oonstitution provides for it, if not in so many words it says so in spirit. It is declared here to be the paramount duty of government to protect property. Suppose, sir, I claim that by the ruling of this Oommission I am damaged ten thousand, or a hundred throusand dollars, where can I get my right adjudicated? Men who have invested millions of dollltrs here for the good of the people of this State-and we will all admit that railroads were prime factors in developing the resources of the State-believing that they had the right to ap_ peal to the courts of the country and their rights there to be settled by

79.
a jury, find themselves now, sir, under this arbitrary tribunal et5tublished by the State of Georgia. It is very perceptible that the Senators all have seen that there is something wanting j that it was necessary in some way to establish a higher tribunal above this one. To adopt the plan proposed, sir, would be to establish a new tribunal within the State of Georgiu. Why not adopt the old one already estahlished? I am heartily in accord with the Senator on my left. that the day has come when some action should be taken for the modification of the powers of this Commission. After having considered the situation, I would be afraid to invest one dollar in railroad enterprIses under the present state of affairs. I would not put my hundreds or thousands, or millions of dollars under the control of any three men, without the right of appeal from their decision.
Mr. President, if the railroads who have inyested their money in the State of Georgia, are not afraid to risk their cause before a jury, then why should the people be afraid? A great deal might be said in relation to this. I am not prepared to make a speech on this subject. "Protection of property is the paramount duty of government and should be impartial and complete." I have no idea but that the framer of this constitutional act thought that when any individual or corporation or number of men should think that their property had been damaged they should have tqe right of an appeal to the courts of the country. That is my opinion. It was in the minds of the framers of the Constitution that no individual should be deprived of the right of appealing to the courts of the country. It is a dear right, and I think these corporations ought to have that right. No person ought to be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, except by due process Of law. What law? The law that existed when that declaration was made. No such thing as this Commisl'lion was then in existence in the State of Georgia. It is since that time that a tribunal has been brought into existence by an act of the Legislature of the State of Georgia that is arbitrary and supreme, and from which there is no appeal. The framers of this Oonstitution never had such a thing in contemplation, and in my opinion it is unconstitutional. I do not believe the Legislature has the right, constic tutionally, to establish such a tribunal in the State of Georgia. Again, the Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend his own cause In any of the courts in this State in person, by attorney or both. The declaration is here set forth that no person shall be deprived of the right to defend his own case in any of the courts of the country. If these corporations complain that they have been injured, ought they not have the right to appeal? No Senator can give any reason why they shouldn't have that right under the Oonstitution and the laws of the State to defend their cause in person or by attorney in the courts of the State. What courts? Commencing, sir, in the District Oourts and .Justice Oourts, on up to the Superior Oourts and Supreme Courts of the State, al'l.d, sir, to the Supremc Oourt of the United States. The establishll1eflt of this Commission is in direct conflict

80
with the provision and spirit of the Constitution in every sense. In this way the railroads are precluded frum coming into the courts of the country when they fool aggrieved. This Commission, all along in their reports to the General Assembly, have recommended the right of appeal until the last reo, port. I believe. Now sir, when they come here by their last report they seem to have awakened out of a sleep. They are intelligent gentlemen , and incorruptible so far as I know, but why did they not decide shortly after they were put in power that there should be no right of appeal from their decisions'! Why have they recommended from time to time that there ought to be an appeal from their decisions? Why has it occurred to their minds so recently that there should be no appeal; that their decisions ought to be final? Why, sir, I consider it monstrous that a corporation, a body created by law, composed of men who have come here with confidence in the State of Georgia and the wisdom of her laws, after having invested millions of dollars in this State, thht they should now find created here this autocracy. This is a feeling which exists with capitalists inside and outside of this State. Fellow Senators, take it home to yourselves. If you had millions .of dollars to invest, would you want to invest it, put it under the control of three men who would say that you had no right to say what you shall charge for the labor you perform? Mr. President, I can not believe that there is a Senator on this floor who can oppose this bill. It seems to be equitable and just. I am here" as the Senator from the Forty-second District said, representing the people, and I propose when I do that, to do all that'I think is right for the people, and do no injury to any particular portion of the people, or to anyone outside of the limits of this state. I think it would be unjust to do this. Now, Mr. President, J: have expressed my views and sentiments in this candid way, but when I come to a conclusion in my own mind-when I have revolved the question in my own mind and am thoroughly satisfied that I am correct-I propose to go that way until I am convinced to the contrary, and I say that no gentleman on the,opposite side has shown any good reason why these corporations should not have the right of appeal to the juries of the country. This is one of the dearest rights of the citizen~to appeal to a jury when his rights of property or interest is affected. It is a fundamental prinoiple of law, the protection of life and property, and no citizen can be deprived of them exc8pt by due process of law. What law? The presumption is the law as administered by the courts of our State, which has been established for many years. It doesn't mean, sir, any new tribunal that has been established. There is no idea that it will ever come to that point, that three nlen in the State of Georgia shall decide upon a great amount of property and the interests affecting those corporations without the right of appeal, but here it stands, and they must submit to this arbitr>try power unless some modification is made.

81

HON. H. C. SHEFFIELD, OF THE NINTH DISTRICT.

The President-The question now recurs on the amendmentoffered by

the Senator from the Ninth.

.

:Mr. Sheffield-I desire to ask leave to add a few lines to the amend-

ment, it has not yet been acted on. After the words "appealed to the Supe-

rior Court" in the 46th line, I <lesire to add the following: "In the coun-

ty where the complaint originated;" also add after the words" providen-

tial caqse" in the 59th line, "either party to said proceeding may move

for a new trial or except to the action of said Superior Court !IS is now

provided by law in other cases."

(The Ulerk read the amendment !II further amended by its introducer,

Mr. Sheffield.)

Mr. Tignor-I offered all amendment which is on the Clerk's desk,

striking out the words in the 30th line, "unless continued by providen-

tial cause, providing for the deposi tion of witnesses to be taken irrespec-

tive of their residence, so as to secure immediate trial. I would like t~

have the Clerk read it.

(The Clerk read the amendment.)

Mr. Wilcox--I offered an amendment to section second, providing

that when an appeal has been made to the court. and that the decision

of the Supreme Court in that case shall be regarded as a precedent and

no appeal allowed by the court.

The President-The question recurs en the amendment offered by the

Senator from the Ninth.

Mr. Sheffield-I promise the Senate not to inflict upon it a speech up-

on this question. We have occupied five or six days, I think, in the

discussion of the question now before us. Nearly all of the Senators who

are in the habit of speaking have been heard. There may be some who

wait to be heard upon the final passage of this bill, and I promise you

not to trouble you now with a speech, except to call your attention to

the provisions of the amendment which I have submitted. This amend-

ment, Senators, provides, first, that the railroads shall make their rates.

It provides, second, that if any person interested in these rates shall be

dissatisfied, that they make complaint to the CommissiQlllers of the rail-

roads in this city, setting forth'their cause of complaint. The amend-

ment provides, also, that when that has been done, that unless the rail-

roads alter their rates so as to conform to that asked for by the com-

plainant, that after notic<! to the railroads, hearing shall be had before

the Commissioners, they giving both parties a full and a fair hearing,

and that when they have so heard the question that they shall decide

what shall be the rate in the matter complained of.

Mr. Jordan-Do I understand that what the Senator requires by his

amendment is this: That the party complaining shall suggest a rate ror

the particular article complained of, or for a class of articles, or for the

whole tariff of the road? If I understand his amendment it is that the

party complaining of a rate must suggest a rate which he thinks is rea6.

82
sonable. Does that suggestion apply to the article complained of, or to aJl the arti"les in the class to which that article belonged?
Mr:Sheffield-The amendment answers the question as .plain as I could give it to the Senator. It provides that any person interested in the tates may make complaint and aJlege that the rate is unreasonable and unjust. If he is interested in one or another class of freight rates he can complain of them. He may complain of anything that he is dissatisfied with that he is interested in.
Mr. Jordan-I understand from the Senator then that a party complaining can only suggest rates upon those articles which he claims he is interested in by reason of an injury he has sustained by reason of an over charge?
Mr. Sheffield-No, sir. Mr. Jordan-Then do I understand from the Senator that the party can complain as to the rates whether he is the shipper or consignee of the articles or is not? My idea is this. If, for instance, A shipped cotton or has that cotton consigned to him and he complains that the rate is too high, must he suggest a tariff on the whole class to which cotton belongs or merely upon the cotton itself. Mr. Sheffield-Well, I say I should think that if a man had no interest in the,rates except those made on cotton that is all that he would have a right to complain of. I don't think that a man who is only interested in cotton would have a right to make a rate on iron. If he has an interest on that tariff in any particular line or on the entire tariff the force of this amendment would be that he could make complaint and h,we a hearing on any class that he has an interest in. The complaint that he is allowed to make is only limited .by his interest. I don't know what construction might be given to this amendment but at leMt my intention is not to require a person interested in a rate to wait until he has been already damaged by the rate, but that when the rates are made he may at any time before he has suffered loss by that rate, complain of the rate. It is not wise in correcting troubles and evils to wait until the damage is done before you begin. My idea is make corrections before the damage takes place. Senators, I was going on to State tha;t after this hearing under this amendment either party who is dissatisfied with the rates made by the Commissioners may appeal to the court. Mr. McBride-I would ask the gentleman if his amendment is not the exact provision or almost identical with the provisions in the original bill ? Mr. Sheffield-I don't think it is. Mr. McBride-I will read the amendment and repeat the question. "whenever any railroad company doing business in this State shall make charge and coJleet other than just and reasonable rHtes, etc. And upon petition being filed with said Commissioners they shall. proceed to hear and determine the same, etc." My question is where does the provision in your amendment differ from what I have read?

83
Mr. Sh"ffield~Thegentleman must read them 'both, and form his own opinion. I don't know whether it is an important matter one JNay or the other. The only important question is whether it is a good law. If it is, I don't care what it is like. It seems to me that the original bill was not clear in some of its provisions. It was not clear in givin1g the Railroad Commission power in correcting the rates. It conferred power upon them to regulate, but it didn't say that rates might be made by the Commissioners. My amendmen.t expressly says that the rate-making power may be considered and entertained by the Railroad Commissioners; so that it removes that question of doubt. I concede that this amendment amounts to just what the friends of the bill said the bill amounted to, which I thought it did not do, and I have only made plain what seemed to be doubtful before. It is provided that when a party has appealed, pending the appeal, when' it might be delayed, the railroads are held not to the rates made by themselves but to the rates which have been made by the Commissioners. The judgment of the Commissioners remains the legal rate until the final decision, or until set aside by some other authority, as I have explained. What objection there can be to this I don't know. It seems to me that there can be no objection to allowing the railroads to make their rates. It seems to me that if the railroads make stIch a freight tariff, that nobody can complain, it ought to stand. Suppose that every railroad in Georgia makes rates that give satisfaction to the people, what business have the Commissioners to meddle with it? If it satisfied everybody, that ought to be the end of it. If nobody complains, let the rates made by the railroads stand. If anybody does make complaint, the matter goes before the Commissioners, and they make the rates, and those rates stand until they are altered by the court. There can be no objection to giving the decision of the matter to the jury. They are not generally accused of leaning towards the railroads. The rates of the Commissioners stand, under this amendment, until a jury find them to be unjust and unreasonable; if not, the verdict of the jury stands.
As to the constitutionality of this amendment, or to appeal to a jury, I am not going to undertake to enlighten this Senate. In this house or the other, it is universally the case, almost, that when a man can find nothing else to base an objection on, he says "unconstitutional," and if all the bills were unconstitutional that have had that objection made to them, the Supreme Court would be all the time in session setting them aside. How many have you heard the Supreme Oourt decide to be unconstitutional? When they are passed, it is difficult to find a lawyer who is willing to risk his reputation before the Court by making that point of objection. Whether this is unconstitutional or not, I don't know. I do not think it is. I know there is a provision in the constitution of the State of Georgia which says that the right of trial of jury shall remain inviolate.
Mr.Jordan-Does not the gentleman know that ; l' h premeourt

84
of the State, in 57th Georgia, deny exactly that proposition, and say that you have no right of appeal except in criminal cases.
Mr. Sheffield-I don't know what that decision says. If the gentleman,can show that, he should have done so when he had the oPportu7 nity. The "entlllmen who say the right of appeal is unconstitutional were yesterday fighting for the right of appeal; or for an amendment which permitted that right of appeal to the jury.
Mr. Jordan-I will ask if Mr. McBride's amendment said one word about a jury 7 If it did not provide altogether merely that the railroad. ehould submit their schedules of rates to the Commission?
Mr. Sheffield-You go to the McBride amendment and read the eection as amended and you will find that the right of app\lal is there yet.
Mr. Cabaniss-I am surprised to hear the Senator from the Twentyeighth say that the section did not contain the right of appeal to the jury.
Mr. Jordan-Mr. McBride's amendment did not. Mr. Cabaniss-The section as ~mended unless further amended would have given the right of appeal. Mr. McBride-I trust that I will not be misrepreeented. Myamendment did not allude to the right of appeal,. but if the ssctio:l had been amended as I proposed, the right of appeal would have remained. Mr. Sheffield-That is exactly the position I have taken. That is the truth of it, Senators; and yet the gentlemen get up and state that they are opposed to the right of appeal after advocating that amendment. Mr. McBride-Will the Senator allow me to state that I am still in favor of the right of appeal. Mr. Sheffield-I will tell you if you will take out this amendment and submit it to ordinary sensible men they will all say it looks very fair. I believe that this amendment is plain and simple and says exactly what it means; and what it means is fair to all concerned. If you adopt this amendment and an appeal to a jury is found to be unconstitutional; if the bill is found to be unconstitutional, what ~s the effect? The court will so declare it. The effect of that declaration is this, that the rate made by the Commissioners win remain the rate, and that is what the gentlemen are asking for. The men who oppose this bill and say it is unconstitutional insist that the Commission has the right to fix the rate. If the courts declare it to be unconstitutiona 1 where does it leave the rates? Does it leave them under this amendment as made by the railroads? No sir, they are left as made by the Commissioners, and the railroads are kept from charging higher rates than those made by the Commissioners until they are changed by higher authority. This gives the Oommission the entire power to contr<'J1 the rates and to prevent unjust discrimination, but their power is exercised in the ca\,;e of the general rates only when complaint is made by the people. That is all I have to say, Mr. President. The amendment offered by Mr. Sheffield was then voted on and adopted.

85

SHEFFIELD AMENDMENT.

Mr. Sheffield-The principal points of difference, as I understand

them, between the ..mendment offered by Mr. McBride and the substi-

tute offered by myself, are these:



The amendment as woposed by him, doesn't provide how parties can

be made to any questim about rates. It provides that the Railroad

Commissioners can notify the railroads and the railroads can make an

appeal, but it does not go further and provide who will come in and

make the appeal provided the railroad is satisfied. The amendment

offered by myself provides for parties on both sides. Another point of

difference between them is that his amendment authorizes the commis-

sion to revise rates made by the railroads without being requested to do

so by any person who feels aggrieved. This amendment that I offer

provides that the rates made by the railroads shall remain the rates un-

less somebody shall complain of them. tlomebody who is interested,

and then only can the Oommission exercise any control over railroad

rates.

Now, I will give you in short form the effect uf the amendment of-

fered by myself.

It authorizes the railroad companies, first, to make their own rates.

It authorizes any person interested, directly or indirectly, in the rates,

to complain to the Railroad Oommission and to set forth their cause of

complaint. It seems to me that is enough to require of them. It also

says that the party complaining must show cause of his complaint. If

he says the rates are too high, he must inform the Railroad Oommission

what the rates charged are, as well as what he charges would be a rea-

sonable rate. The next step would be for the Railroad Oommissioners

to notify the railroad companies, giving them ten days notice and serv-

ing them with a copy of the complaint, so that the companies may know

what is charged against them and what they are required to do. Then

the amendment provides that if the railroads see proper to amend

their schedule of rates so as to conform to the rates asked for by the

Oonplainant that they shall have the right to do so, and that will end

it. If the parties agree to this who can object? But in case they do

not agree the next step is a hearing by both parties before the Commis-

sion, who have not prejudged the matter by revising these rates. It is

a new question to them, and they ate unbiased by any former finding

of their own on the question. They hear from the parties all the evi-

dence, then they pass judgment as to what they think the rates should

be. That being done, it is provided that either party dissatisfied by the

rates have the right to go to the courts by an appeal. I t is provided

also that that appeal shall be speedily tried in the courts and that it

shall have precedent over all other cases, and shall be tried at the first

term. It also provides tqat pending the appeal and before the final set-

tlement in the courts of this matter of the justness and fairness of the

rates made by the Commission, that the rates made by the Commission-

86
ers are the legal rates, and that the railroads cannot, must not, dare not charge other rates than the rates made by the Commissioners, until the rates have been changed by the courts. After the finding of the jury, the question has been argued before the courts and different rates decided on, of course then, it will be the duty of the railroad companies, as well as the citizens who have complained, to abide by that appeal.
I can't see any objection to this amendment. I don't see how the railroads can complain. It gives them the rate making power. It takes from the Commissioners the power to interfere, except upon complaint being made, and then they can only interfere with it as to the matters complained of. It gives them the right to appeal to the courts of the county from the decision of the Commission. And so it seems to me that under the amendment I have offered the railroads ought to be satisfied. On the other hand it appears to me that the opponents of the measure before the Senate ought to bc satisfied. What can they find to object to? If they say the amendment allows the railroads to make its own rate, at the same time it allows any citizens of this State to make objection to it and have a hearing before the Commission, and it gives the Oommission the right not to make rates and regulations, as the original bill says, but it gives them the right to revise the rates made. There is nothing uncertain as to what that means. It does not affect a particular case, but it affects all the rates from the point in question. After the matter is left to the Commission they have the right to appeal to the courts, I do not suppose that anybody will question the right and justness of the right of appeal to the courts of the country, on questions where such an immense property is at stake. The only objections that could be made to that is that under the Constitution we have no right to refer it to the court; that it is purely a legislative question. If that is true the question as to the unconstitutionality may come before the court and it will result in this way. When the Supreme Oourt decides that the act referring it to the court is unconstitutional the rates are then left as made by the Oommission, and the peoplp. ought to be satisfied. The railroad will be compelled to abide the rates made by the Oommission. If it is unconstitutional and is purely a legislative question and one which you cannot carry before the courts, the Supreme Courts will so decide and the rates will be left as fixed by the Oommissioners.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that the amendment I have thus offered ought to suit the views of the members on both sides of this question.
The point being made that that amendment was not the question properly before the house, the chair ruled that without objection the substitute offered by the Senator being in the nature of an original bill, was in order.

87
HON. D. A. RUSSELL, OF THE EIGHTH DISTRICT.
Senator Russell-I simply want to call the attention of the Senate to the legal wording of this bill. Complaint is made, especially from the Senator from the Twentieth, that a jury wouldn't be able to grasp the 'question and pass upon it intelligibly. Take that for granted. I wanted simply to call your attention to the fact that a jury would have almost nothing at all to do with it. This section expressly says that these appeals shall be tried as equity cases. I desire to call your attention to how equity cases may be tried. When the case is sounded the chancellor has ample discretion in the matter, and may refer it to a Master in Chancery, or if the parties agree upon a man he may refer to him as an auditor who may be a citizen of the community or of the State. The court, in such a case, will select a man who will be competent to hear the evidence and pass upon it. He has tbe confidence of both sides. He reports this evidence with his rulings thereon to the next term of the Superior Court, and if his report is agreed to, the jury never passes upon it at all.
Mr. McBride, of the Thirty-Eighth-Does the bill require that the case shall be referred to a Master in Chancery or Auditor, and be tried at the first term of court?
Senator Russell - Yes, sir; Lhe Master can hear the evidence instanter, and it will be tried at the first term of the court. A jury would never hear of the case unless there were exceptions to this final rulings, and I think, sir, that would be on the line of strict justice better than to submit the question to twelve ignorant men. The Judge of the Superior Court would select the very best talent to try these cases, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the rulings of the Master in Chancery are made the judgment of the court without exceptions. If there were exceptions then they would be plainly and distinctly set forth, and most of those are passed npon b) the court upon demurrer or motion. You see no wrong could be done to either party. It would not be the finding of a jury of twelve irresponsible men, but of a learned man who had been selected by the court. That being so, I think it is a wise provision in this bill. The Railroad Commission in every report that they have made, except the last one. have recommended that some appeal be granted the railroads from their decisions. The Governor of Georgia, in his last message to this General Assembly, urgently recommended that we pass some law giving the railroads and the people a hearing and an appeal from the decision of the Railroad Commissioners. Every officer that has spoken to us, from the highest to the lowest has recommended this thing. No just man, no man who thoroughly understands the spirit of our institutions will say it is just to deny either to the railroads or to the people an appeal to the courts. It is a right, Mr. President, that is nLt denied to the redhanded murderer or to the petty thief or burglar. Every person who has rights or liberties to be jeopardized under the system of our government has the right to appeal to the courts of the

88
country, and as the Senator from the Forty-Third happily suggested a while ago, the only exception is the railroads. Mr. President, I desire to say this: While we have a Commission to-day that we are not afraid of, while, as at present constituted, the people of Georgia may never fear. them nor the railroads suffer, but this condition of affairs may not last always. There may be those who will occupy their places who will make us feel as the people of California do to-day. Then we will cry for an appeal, and I hope this law will be passed before the people have cause to complain. Let us give these corporation> a right of appeal to the courts of this country. If this amendment offered by the gentleman of the Thirty-Eighth, is adopted, the bill itself falls to the ground. and it becomes a piece of useless legislation.
Amendments offered by Mr. Tigner, Mr. Wilcox, and Mr. Smith of the Thirtieth, were accepted by Mr. Sheffield, and section 2d as amended was adopted.
Third section read and adopted. Fourth section read and adopted. Mr,. Russell offered the following amendment as substitute for section fifth, to displace section fifth, which was then made the sixth section. Sec. 5. Be it further enacted. That whenever a complaint shall be filed with said Commissioners, as provided in this act, it shall not be necessary for the complainant to appear in person. or by attorney, before said Commissioners, or furnish any evidence further than to establish the fact that the rate, Charge, rule, or dllcrimination complained of actually exists, and a bill of lading or receipt for freights, or the order of the company establishing such rate, rule or discrimination shall be sufficient proof of the fact, and when such complaint is filed and such proof furnished, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to notify said railroad company complained of, by serving them by mail or otherwise, with a copy of the complaint, and at the time set for a trial thereof, shall proceed to investigate and try the same. and pass judgment thereon; and to that end may require !lny evidence trom the railroad com pany as they may deem proper to a full and fair understanding of the facts complained of. Mr. Russell-The object of that amendment is this: A good many of the objections to this bill are based on the ground that it will be troublesome to come to Atlanta and represent a complaint against the railroads. This amendment obviates that by simply authorizing any - complainant to file his complaint in the form ot the receipt or bill of lad:ng of the railroud which makes an overcharge or discrimination by sendin~ the same by mail to the Commissioners; then it is made the duty of the Commissioners and they are empowered to base their action on this complaint made in writing. In this way the complainant can make his complaint without a dollar of expense, by simply filing his complaint in this form. The burden of proof is left on the railroads. This makes the rights of the citizens more secure and perfect than ever. Adopted.

89
HON.' JAMES M. SMITH, OF THE THIRTIETH DISTRICT.
On the bill to amend the Railroad Oommission law, in Senate, morning session, September 18, 1885, Mr. Smith said:
Mr. President-Impelled by a sense of duty which I feel I owe to the honorable constituency that sent me here, and also to the whole
people of Georgia, I beg the indulgence of the Senate while I endeavor
to give expression to the views which seem to me to be founded not only on question and right, but good policy.
There was a time in the history of Georgia when we had no railroads. Farmers then hauled on wagons their produce hundreds of miles before they could find a market for it. .They then transported, in the same way, to their homes such articles as they were obliged to buy. These trips consumed many weeks, some times months, of hardship and toil. While paying high prices for that which they bought, they obtained low prices for that which they sold. After a while science and genius discov"red and constructed railroads. Then, as now, new life and energy was infused into the whole country through which railroads were built. The farmer's produce brought him a better price, and that which he was forced to buy he purchased cheaper. Thus farming became more profitable, it being the foundation upon which all other pursuits, avocations and professions rested, gave impetus to all business. Population, schools, churches, intelligence, wealth, and all that tended to make a country great and prosperous, multiplied and increased rapidly, so that when the war between the States came on, in 1860, GeOIgia was truthfully called, athome and abroad, the Empire State ofthe South. Every Georgian felt, as he had a right to feel, proud of the position which his State occupied among her sister States.
Who will say that the old Georgia Railroad, the State Road, the Central, South Western, Atlanta & West Point, and other railroads then built and in operation did not contribute as much towards bringing the State to her then proud position as any other factor which enteT'edinto her grand make-up. In those days we had no Railroad Commissions, composed of three individuals, from whose edict there was no appeal. The blood of our liberty-loving Revolutionary ancestors was then too fresh in the veins of Georgians to tolerate anything so oppressive and tyrannical.
Passing over the period of the war, which stranded our railroads like it did every thing else, and taking account of Georgia since, we find that the railroads have continued since, as before, to develop every other industry. This might continue, and very likely would continue, but for the paralyzing arm of the Railroad Commission as now constituted. I do not mean any reflection upon the personel of the Commission. Doubtless all three of the gentlemen composing the Commission are men of rare ability and unquestioned integrity, but I mean the Railroad Commission law as it now stands.
'1'he Legislature of 1878-9, after discussing the matter for a long while

90
passed a law creating the present Oommission. At the ti~e it was not thought to be perfect. Its warmest advocates did not claim so much for it. Indeed, to claim for any law framed by imperfect man, perfection is an absurdity. Six years of experience have demonstrated that the law needs amendment. While some good may have been done, and some benefit derived by certain localities, very great harm and loss have been in various ways entailed upon other communities. At any rate, great complaints have, at every session, come up to this body, calling for modification of the law.
The railroad committee, to whom was entrus~d this business, have, after mature reflection and careful examination into the whole matter, submitted a bill which we now have under consideration, which will, if passed, to a great extent remedy the evils of which so much complaint is made. This hill proposes that the people, the railroads and all parties at interest, shall have the right of trial by jury and the right of appeal. The bill does not propose to abolish the RaEroad Oommission, to take away their.power to pass upon "unjust discriminations and unreasonable rates."
As the law stands there is no appeal from their decision. If it should be wrong and unjust, palpahle and undisputed, there is no remedy for the aggrieved party. The Railroad Commission does not claim for itsself the extraordinary virtue of reviewing its own decisions and overruling its own deliberate judgment. Hence, in its various reports, made from time to timc to the General Assembly. the Commission has said that th()re ought to he aright of appeal from its decisions.
The love of power is the greatest of all passions. The history of the world shows but few instances where it has been willingly and cheerfully laid down. ~o in this case. When the very thing which in their calme,r moments they advised is about to be done there is objection.
The right of trial by jury and the right of appeal ought to be the birth-right of every citizen of Georgia, whether that citizen be rich or poor. These rights have ascended to us from our English ancestors and have ever been our pride and boast.
If we have reached a period in our history where it becomes necessary to trample these great rights underfoot and deny them to any portion of our citizens it is-time to acknowledge that our fine system of government is a failure.
Who would have imagined even ten years ago that the time would so soon roll round when any considerable portion of the Georgia Senate would insist upon denying to any citizen of their State these inalienable privileges. But such is the case.
I was interested in the eloquent remarks of the Senator from the Twenty-Fourth when on yesterday he spoke words ofpraise ofGen. Toombs I would notif I could, extract one iota from the fame of this great Georgian, but on the contrary, I would willingly add my mite to make it greater. Perhaps General Toombs was never more eloquent than when he delivered his lecture on Magna Charta. To our statemen who have

91
served the p~ople of Georgia in the halis of Congress and elsewhere with such marked ability and distinction', I have no impulse save to bestow on them their just meed of praise, but there is another class of of our fellow citizens who ought to come in for a fair .share of the honors of making Georgia what she is and what she is destined to be if wise legislation prevails. I allude to that numerous class of our people, who have given their time, talents, energy, means and labor to developing the resources of Georgia by the building and operating of railroads, in mining and manufacturing, in agriculture and mechanics, and in various other pursuits. After all that is said they are the real men of the State upon whose shoulders rests the future prosperty and greatness of our commonwealth. Then why attempt to create a prejudice against them in legislatures and other forums when discussing questions of merit. This is all wrong and tends towards communism and the final ruin of all that is worth living for and perpetuating. Give to every man and every class of men the benefits of his energy, industry, labor, judgment, skill and good fortune. Then our country will be free in practice as well as in theory.
The Senator from the Twenty-fourth complains of the system of rebates, and mentions the Messrs Inman, of Atlanta, as a case in point.
Mr. Thornton-I mentioned Messrs. Inman & Co. only because they were large shippers. I knew that this thing had been done before the Commission was established in every city in the State. Whether the },Iessrs. Inman & Co. got any rebates I do not know.
Mr. Smith-Do you know whether the Commission have stopped the railroads from granting rebates?
Mr. Thornton-They say they have as far as the law will permit them. That is all I know.
Mr. Smith-The Commission has no authority to regulate freights on goods coming into Georgia from another State, nor freights on goods shipped out of Georgia. Hence, they have no authority to interfere with rebates under similar circumstances. If the system of rebates be wrong the Commission has no power to stop it, neither can the General Assembly of Georgia grant them such power. To do so would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which says no State shall interffJre with interstate commerce. Then why complain of a thing which cannot be stopped by the Commission or any other power, State or National?
Rebates are founded on business principles. If a dealer in Atlanta handles say 20,000 bales of cotton in one season and desires to ship it to N ew York, he very properly gets the best rate of freight he can.
He does this by getting the best terms from each route and when he does this he ships by the road offering the greatest inducements. The roads themselves are anxious to do the business, and very properly propose ttl do it at a low rate, When the merchant gets a low rate of freight on cotton, he can and does pay the farmer a better price.
It is on the same principle of business that he who buys by the whole-

92
sale buys cheaper than he who buys by the retail, and he who sells by the wholesale sells cheaper than he who sells by Ghe retail.
I have no objection to the railroads being controlled by law. By law is what this bill pr.oposes. At present they are controlled, not by law, but by the edicts of the Commission, from which there is no appeal.
The Senator from the Twenty-Fourth complains of the position of the newspapers on this bill, and intimates that they have been improperly influenced and do not represent fairly public opinion. My information is that copies of this bill have been sent to the various newspapers of the State with requests that the bill be published so that the people can see it and read it, and know what its provisions are. This seems fair. It certainly does not~show any disposition to take any advantage of the people. The newspapers have an immense influence. The people naturally look to them for information.
It is urged that the railroads water their stock and deceive the outside world as to the true cost of their roads. The Atlanta & West Point Road'is mentioned as a case in point. That road was built before the war. As all of our roads at that time, it was very poorly and cheaply constructed-wooden stringers and flat iron were used. Since the war this road has been greatly improved. Thousands of dollars have been expended on it, until now the road has actually cost twice what it did originally. I see nothing wrong in issuing additional stock to the owners, which represents the true cost of the road. To illustrate: A man' buys a lot in the city of Atlanta, for which he pays $1,000. He grades it, sets out tr"es and shrubbery, builds a house thereln. These improvements make the lot cost, when they are complete, say $2,000, $3,000, or $5,000. The owner finds a tenant. Shall he be allowed to charge 7 per cent. only on the original cost of the lot? Should he not charge 7 per cent. on the cost of the lot and improvements? Most assuredly. .Just so it is with railroads.
We have been told that the city of Columbus has expended many thousands of dollars in building various lines of railroads, and that she has a river which God Almighty gave her. but the Central Railroad has gobbled up all her railroads, and absolutely stolen her river! Columbus was not forced to sell her railroads. She did this voluntarily, and doubtless for a valuable consideration. If the Central Railroad transported passengers and freights as cheaply on the river as has been represented, why, certainly somebody was benefited, and who more than the people of Columbus and tbe farmers adjacent? The complaint in the one case is, freights were too high, in the next they are too low. This is what I call blowing hot and blowing cold, and crooking the gun. (Here a message from the House was received.) Mr. Smith continued: After all the complaints, I am creditably informe<l that the rates from Columbus to Savannah are the same as from Atlanta to Savannah. If this be true, what right has Columbus to complain?
,Mr. Thornton-Don't you think the Commission has had something to do with that?

93
Mr. Smith-I do not know. If the rates frnm Columbus are the same liS they were before we had a Commission, how has the Commission benefitted Columbus? Will you tell me?
Mr. Thoruton-I certainly will. The rate from Columbus to Savannah, before the Commission, was mch that thousands of bales of cotton were carried from Columbus to Montgomery, a bundred miles, and then brought back from Montgomery to Columbus. That was the way it was "lone before the IJommission wai established.
r. SmitQ-I expect ColumbUl, when she sold out her intiereEts in her railroads, exacted her present raWi. If so, wherein has the Commission benefitted Columbus, on raiel or oWaerwise? Can it be true that Columbus, II city of more than 10,000 inhabitants, with her millions of capital, has become disheartened and now aiii upon the banb of her river with her harps on the willows and wllepi 1 Would it not be far better for Columbus to arise lWld wake from her lethargy, and by her own strong arms save herself, !WI many other citiea in Georgia have done and are doing. Several yoors ago Athena had the same trouble_he only had one railroad; freights were relatiTely too high. In "order to maintain h3rsel1 she built another road, and after she built it she held it. She now has satisfactory Yates of freight brought about by competition. This course on her part was certllinly more commendable than to have laid on her oars and waited for the Commission to help her. Let Co lumbus act upon the idea "that the diligent shall inherit the earth."
In many other states the ownership and control of the railroads has passed out of the hands of their OW,1 citizens. In Georgia this is not the case. The Central Rai'lroad. bouth Western Railroad, Atlanta and West Point Railroad and Georgia Railroad are worth about eighteen millions of dollars. Of this sum twelve millions are owned by citizens of Georgia. Of theRe twelve millions, eight millions are owned by widows, orphans and charitable institutions. Can it b6 possible that by unfriendly legislation you will force these people to sell their stock at a nominal price to foreigners, who may some day control the Commission, consolidate all the railroads in Georgia, destroy competition and grind the pllople into poverty? Such is the oase in some of the States, and the people are powerless to help themse~ves.
One eqtreme sometimes follows another. Desperation often wins victories. r.e"t us be conservative and just.
Noone can d"eny that railroad building is at a standstill in Georgia to-day. The people are everywnere" clamoring for morl? railroads, and" cannot get them. The business men and capitalists refuse to invest money in rll.ilroads. When asked why. they reply: "Weare afraid to put oumoney where we cannot cO'lltrol it." There is no doubt resting on my mind but that the arbitrary powers granted our Railroad Commission, have prevented and is every day preventing money from being invested in railroads.
.lt has )Jeen said that more miles of railroad have been built in Georgia since the Railroad Commission was created than in any State south

94
of Ohio, and east of the Mississippi. Let us inquire into this assertion. During the present year there are in the little State of South Carolina, with half the wealth. population and area of Georgia, in course of construction, 184 miles of broad gauge railroads, while in Georgia there are
t only 136 miles, of which is narrow gauge. South Carolina has modi-
fied her railroad commission law. Florida, a State with less than half the population, wealth and area of South Carolina, and one-fourth that of Georgia, has in course of construction 274 miles of railroad. Florida has no Hailroad Commission.
The building of the E. T. V. & G. R. R. was planned before the Railroad Commission was created. The State had sold the Macon & Brunswick Railroad very low, on condition that it be extended to Atlanta. The purchasers were aware that extending to Atlanta would be of very little benefit unless the extention was carried further, so as to make a connection withsqme other friendly road. Thus the building of this road was brought about. This road is now in the hands of a receiver.
No State in the Union has a Railroad Commission so arbitrary as Georgia. Tennessee has abolished her Railroad Commission. South Carolina has greatly modified ll.ers. Alabama has one that is only ad visory. Florida has none.
To create a Commission or court with arbitrary power is oppression and tyranny, whether it be in Georgia or Russia. Yet with all of her boasted freedom this is what Georgia has done. If our property is to be controlled by one or three individuals without recourse or responsibility, what matters it whAther we live in Georgia or Russia. What signifies the right to vote and hold office when your property is in the hands of parties who have no interest in it or you, further than to pander to the baser elements of society and thereby secure reappointment or election to some other office.
If the Central Railroad through her sagacious and enterprising managers has extended her iron arms to the Mississippi valley on the one side and to the mountains of North Carolina on the other and made Georgia's chief seaport the second cotton market of all the States from Maine to California, and has laid down the products of distant States at the doors of Georgia cheaper than any other road, where is the Georgian who does not feel an honest pride in the wonderful results achieved by this most abused corporation? Wm. M.Wadley did as much for Georgia in originating and executing these plans as any of her honored Statesmen.
Again, if this arbitrary law is modified, it will convince the people of other states and countries that Georgia is willing to protect all her citizens in all their rights. When it is shown that you will not protect your citizens in their rights of person and property, you depopulate your State and bring poverty and ruin. These are eternal principles of political economy. founded 'on justice an'd right, and true in all ages and under all circumstances. When you depart from these great funda-

95

mental principles you do incalculable harm to your State which only a

return of sober second thought can remedy.

.

I have Q,ot a dollar's interest in any railroad in Georgia or elsewhere,

but I have an interest in the prosperity and future growth and devel-

opment of my State which outweighs the temporary plaudits of those

who yield to passion and prejudice rather than to reason, justice and

right. I want Georgia to be in the future as she has been in the past,

the Empire State of the South. In no way can she contribute more to

the attainment of this proud position than by the justice and undisput-

ed impartiality of her laws. This is all that is asked.

I trust no Senator has allowed his prejudices to get the better of his judgment, and that in casting his vote on this bill he will have no slavish fear of the unreasoning and unthinking. I met an intelligent gentleman on the streets the other day, who said he believed this bill was right and just, but he was afraid to say so to the public. . Why, I asked. Because, said he, I am afraid it will be unpopular. This is not my idea of legislation. Do what is right, and the honest yeomanry of the land will sustain you. The people do not want anything but what is fair. "Let no man fear to tread where duty leads."

HON. .JOHN S. DAVIDSON, OF THE EIGHTEENTH DISTRICT.
JHr. Davidson-After conclusion of Mr. Smith's argument on the morning of the 18th-said:
I desired to State to the Senate the reasons which control my vote upon this measure, but in consequence of the time which has already been occupied in this debate, and by reason of my duties elsewhere in the Senate, as well as on account of my own indisposition physically I have been prevented from doing so. Oomprehending, as I do, that the questiou has been ably and fully debated and that there are quite a number of our s~all body who are required by exigencies over which they have no control, to leave us m a very short time, some for their respective homes and others for places where they are called by business engagements, I shall refrain from making any statement whatever at this time, and believinp.; that the end of the debate has been properly arrived at I respectfully call upon this matter the previous question.
Bill was then passed. Motion that it be immediately transmitted to the House adopted.

APPENDIX.
RAILROAD LEGISLATION.
A Review of the Report of the Railroad Commmissioners.

To the Honorable Robert Falligant Chairman Senate Sub-Committee on Railroads.
In this report the Commissioners have annoanced themselves not snbject to the power of the legislature or the control of the courts. In substance they claim that the commission was established by the act o.f October 14, 1879; that the constitutionality of this act has been settled by the highest judicial authority of the State, and that now the power conferred on the legislature to regulate rates, etc., has been exhausted.
And from the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the case of the Georgia Railroad et a1. vs. Smith et aI., Commissioners, they quote as follows:
"Thus it appears that the Constitution provided that the Legislature should have power to regulate freight and passenger tariffs and to require reasonable and just rates for both; that it also made it the duty of th~ Legislature to pass laws necessary for its "execution, and that in pursu-
ance of that duty, the law complained of was passed." ... * * "It
was not expected that the Legislature should do more than pass laws to accomplish the end in view." "When this was done, its duty was discharged." From this position it would seem that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the LegIslature exhausted their constitutional powers when the act of October 14th, 1879, was passed. By that act which the Supreme Court held to be constitutional, it is claimed that they were created, and by it the responsibility of passing laws from time to time to regulate rates and prevent extortion, unjust discrimination and rebates, was conferred upon them and their successors in office by an irrevocable power of attorney. The act, they seem to think, made thelli a permanent Legislature to pass laws from time to time for the purpose mentioned therein, and when this was done, the general assembly discharged its duty. If the General Assembly has discharged its duty, there is of cour,e, nothing more for it to do, and any change which experience might show would be desirable, must be made hereafter.bY
7

98
the commission as a Legislature. The duty to pass laws from time to time, they seem 'to claim, has been delegated to them, and that they are now the exclusive constitutional instrument for the passage of such laws.
It is well known that a taste of power creates the most morbid and insatiable of all appetites and desires; but no one supposed or even imagined that when the Commission was styled a star chamber, the Commi~sion would ever pretend to be a long parliament, or rather a chartered Legislature, with powers of perpetual succession. Announcing these views the' Commission, however, assert that it is not in the power of the Legislature to confer upon them judicial functions; and to maintain their position they plant themselves upon that part of the Constitution of Georgia which prescribes that the legi~lative, judicial and executive powers sball forever remain separate and distinct, and no person discharging the duties of one, shall, at the same time, exercise the functions of either of the others, except as herein provftled. They assert that regulating freight and passenger tariffs and prohibiting unjust discriminations on the roads of the State is a legislative function, which was conferred by the Constitution npon the Legislature exclusively. And having proved to their own satisfaction that they are a Legislature, they next declaim against the idea of passing a law providing for an appeal from any action of the Commission as a Legislature. They say: "But would not a law giving the privilege of appeal from the action of the Commission to the courts be itself obnoxious to objections on constitutional grounds? In all such cases the question tried would be, is the action of the Commissioners complained of reasonable and just? To settle this question, the court trying the same would have to determine what would have been just and reasonable action on the part of the Commissioners, and then judge accordingly. If the appealing party should prevail, the judgment of the court would be to the effect that the action of the Commissioners ltppealed from was unreasonable and unjust."
A judgment fi'lding contrary to the exparte opinion of the Commission, a decision adjudging that the action of the Commission was unjust ll.nd unreasonable, a decree establishing as a matter of record its fallibility, they seem to think, could be based on proceedings only which must be unconstitutional. But how far the Commissioners have been mistaken in their powers and as to what they are can best be ascertained by quotations from the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia to which they have referred. In the syllabus point, 1. (a) the Court say: "The powers of the Railroad Commissioners are not Legislative." 70 Ga. p. 694. And on page 693, the Court seems to sustain the power of the Commissioners to make rules and regulations by analogy to the power given to the Judges of the Superior and Supreme Courts. The Court, Crawford, J., delivering the opinion, says: "Legislative grants of power to the officers of the law to make rules and regulations which are to have force and effect of laws, are by no means uncommon in the history of our Legisbture. I need only mention the power given to the Judges of the Supreme and Superior

99
.Courts of the State to establish rules which, if not in conflict with the <':onstitution of the United States, of the States or the laws thereof, are 'binding and must be obeved."
And again on page 699 the Court says: "The difference between the ,power to pass a law and the power to adopt rules and regulations to carry -into effect the law already passed, is apparent and strikingly great, and this we understand to be the distinction recognized by all the Courts as the true rule in determining whether or not, in such cases, a Legislative ,power isgranted. The former wO:Jld be unconstitutional, whilst the latter would not." In other words, if, as claimed by the Commission, the act of October 14th, 1879, had conferred upon them Legislative power, the act would have been unconstitutional; but as no Legislative powers had ,been so conferred, and they were no more than officers of the law and not a permanent Legislature, with perpetual successioH the act was COllsti-tutional.
On the claim of infallibility, the same COI,rt says on page 704: "It may not be out of place, in concluding this opinion, to say that, while we hold the act of October 14, 1879, constitutional, and the orders -of the Commissioners valid and binding, yet we are not to be understood as holding that their powers are unlimited or beyond legal control by the proper authorities of the State. On the contrary, we hold that the powers which have bien conferred upon them are to be exercised within -legal and constitutional rights of others. If, therefore, the case made by the complainants against the Commissioners, had shown a violation of the chartered rights of the company, it would have been the duty of the "courts, by proper order and decree, to have restrained and enjoined them from such violation. All grants of powers are to be exercised only in conformity to the constitution of the State and federal government and the laws passed in pursuance thereof." This is no new principle of law. In the case of Packet Co. vs. Catlettsbury, Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, reported in 105 U. S. on page 564, said: "So also while the statue authorizes the trustees to establish the rate of wharfage, if the sum demanded for that service is so far beyond a reasonable compensation for the use of the city's wharf as to be oppressive and an abuse of the power thus conferred, the courts would in some way give approximate relief, and it is part of appellant case which presents the only difficult question for our consid-
eration." .. * * "There is no hinderance to trying this
<qnestion in an action of law. Where the verdict of a jury or the judgment of a court in one or two cases would eetablish what is reasonable under the circumstances, and this being established by the appropriate -tribunal, the conrt of equity could restrain the excess."
In the cases of Rosborrough vs. the St. Louis & Cairo Railroad Com'pany, and Blackwords vs. the Sl>me, decided in the State of Illinois July laet, and reported in the Railway Age of August 20th, 1885, Harker, judge, held: "In a suit brought against a railway company under sec.tion 6 of the Illinois statute of May :ld,1876, which forbids_extortion
1

100
and unjust discrimination in rates by railway companied to r~cover a. penalty for alleged extortionate <,harges on freights paid to defendant by plaintiff, the latter makes a prima facie case by introducing a scheduleof rates as fixed by the Railroad Commissioners of that ~tate, and by showing that higher rates were charged by the defendant, but that such presumption of extortion may be overcome by the evidence of witnesses skilled in the business of railroading, showing that the rated actually charged were reasonable, and that the rate fixed by the Railroad Commissioners were too low."
It seems strange, that the Co,nmissioners, in making their report and quoting the Supreme Court of Georgia, should have overlooked the de-" ci_ion of the points referred to in the caRe. It can be accounted for only by the fact that, under the act of October 14th, 1879, they have been made plaintiffs in all cases against the railroads, and have been blinded. by partiRan prejudice and zeal.
By section 6 of the Act of October 14th, 1879, the schedule of rates and tariff. made by the Commissioners is declared to be merely a ruleof evidence. It is by the law made sufficient evidence (construed by Jndge Woods to mean prima facie proof), that the rates therein prescribed are JURt and reasonable; but under their construction of the pow.r given them to pass rules and regulations, they have by their rule No.6 prescribed that the schedule shall be more than what the law declares it shall be. The act says the schedule shall be taken as prima facie or sufficient evidence in all caseR, that the rules and tariffstherein fixed are just and reasonable. The Railroad companies, as the above cases seem to decide, should have the right to test their correctness. But the Commissioners have substantially taken this right away by rule No.6, which says tha~ "the freight rates prescribed by the Com mission are maximum rates, which shall not be "transcended by the Railroads" If any company should honestly differ with the Commissioners. as to the justness and reasonableness of the rates and tariffs, or any of them, prepared under section 6 of the act, declared by the law to be only a rule of evidence, and be sued for not observing them, then by virtne of rule No.6, wliich adds to the law and declares that the freigbt rates made by them are nut prima facie evidence of what is just and reasonable, but that they are maximum rates not to be transcended, they would be guilty of violating the rules and regulations of the Commission; and, if found guilty, not of charging other than just and rtasonable rates, but of transcending the rules fixed by the Commission, they would be punished for each offense by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than. $5,000, as prescribed by section 9 of the act.
The Supreme Cour(of Georgia, in speaking of this act, also said that it may need amendments is most probable; indeed, an experiment sanew and untried would be exceptional if it were perfect in its very inception,
Under these circumstances, notwithstandivg the viewsexpre.-sed by the Commissionerslin)heir)ast report, ought not this act to be amended?"

101
()l1ght not the Commissioners to be relieved of the duty of being plaintiffs, parti~ans, and even prosecntors of the Railroads? This can only be accomplished hy making- them an impartial tribunal to determine dis'putes between the Railroads and those who may complain against them.
In their last report the Commissioners, h)wever. say the action can not 'be amended so as to give them any judicial powers. because they exercise now nothing but Legislative functions, and the Constitution pr<-scribes ,that any person discharging the duties of one shall not at the same time -exercise the functions of the other. Are not the Commissioners now authorized to exercise judicial powers by sections Sand 9 of this act? By -section S they are empowered to examine all contracts made by Railroads, and to determine if they are legal or illegal,. constitutional or 'unconstitutional; and by section 9 they are empowered to hear complaints as to any violation of their rules and regulations and to decide. first, if -the rule or regulation has been violated and afterwards to award a -recompense to the party wronged or injured. In the appendix to the report itself there are two decisions of the Commission, one in the case of Hill and company et al., against the Central Railroad company, and the
-other in the case of "Blount & lim et al. vs. the Western and Atlantic
Railroad company." And in the public journals of the State, there is -now a pll blished notice that the cases set for decision and those for hearing before the Commissioners on the 25th of August have been continued until the 24th of September.
All unprejudiced persons must think not only that the law as construed 'by the Commissioner", should. but must be amended.
The COlllmhsioners should not be forced into the position of making' the law, the evid.. nce. the case aBd the decision. It is too much to expect -of human nature to think that any man, or any three men. under such -circumstances, could do impartial justice. It would be unjust and unreasonable to suppose that they would ever decide that their own action .was unjust and unreasonable. The law should provide that the Railroads should make their own schedules according to the rules laid down in the 'Constitntion and the laws of the State; the rates and tariffs should be just and reasonable. they should not nnjustly discriminate against any person or community and should be strictly observed without evasion by the giving of any rebates or by any other device. Any person or community aggrieved should have the right to lay a complaint before the Com,missioners to be heard and determined in the simplest manner, with a right of appeal to thp, Superior Court of the county of the principal place ,of business of the corporation, or of the county where the 0ause of complaint originated. to be there tried as an equity case; and the COllimis-sionE'rs should be authorized to pass just and reasonable rules in the premises, not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, of ,this State, or the laws thereof.
Such an amen(l.ment would be clearly constitutional. Judicial power .if not already granted could be given under the authority conferred upon the Legislature by the Constitution to establish other courts. Code ..5123, code 5094.

102
The appeal to the Supreme Court can be given under the power con-
e ferred on the Legislature by Code 5142 to give jurisdiction in such
l)R.e~
. The appeal should be to the Superior Court of the defendant's resi-dence against whom substantial relief is sought, as provided in equity cases. Code, 5169f 4 83.
And as in other cases against railroad companies, the residence of the corporation is fixed by statute, for the purposes of suits, either in the county of its priucipal place of business on in the county where the cause of action originated. (Code 3406.) The appeal should be to the Superior Courts of the same counties.
It is not new in the Legislature of this State to provide for an appeal. from the action of the Commissioners. For many years there has been, a provision for an appeal from the judgment of Commissioners of pilot-
e age. Corle 15:::2. And many cases have been tried in the courts under
the law. There is one now pending returnable to the next term of the Supreme Courl. There are also many other instances of appeals to the Superior Courts from find\ngs and assessments of Commissioners, such as appeals in cases fixing compensation under the exercu.e of the power of eminent domain. The Constitution of the State provides that the Supe-rial' Courts "shall have appellate jurisdiction in all such cases as may be provided by law." Does not the magnitude of the interest now subject to the uncontrolled management and dictatorship of the Commission,. (which is a Legislature when an appeal to the Courts is sought, and is a Court, authorized to make rules and regulations like the Judges of the Superior and Supreme Conrt, when the act of their creation is assailed as being a delegation of legislative functions) require that this great interest should be entitled to as complete and impartial protection as is now given to the smallest case before a Justice of the Peace? It seems as if the Constitution makes it the duty of every Legislator to see that this is done. That instrument proclaims the duty so loudly that the Legislators sworn to support it can not close their ears to its thundering mandate. "Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete." Code 4994. The duty is declared to be paramount; it is above all other duties.
The next proclamation of the Constitution is that, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law.'" Code 4995. These two sections of the Code embody the fourteenth, amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
In DaVIdson vs. New Orleans, 90 United States reports, p. 97 after stating that much misapprehension prevailed as to the meaning of the terms "due process of law," and that it would be difficult to give a defi-nition at once perspicuous and satisfactory, the Court speaking by J ustice Miller said that it would lay down the following proposition applicable to the case: "That whenever by the laws of a State, or by State authority, a tax assessment, servitude or other burden is imposed UpOll>. property for public use, whether it be for the whole State or of some,

103
more limited portion of the community, and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed in the ordinary Courts of Justice with such notice to the' person, or such proceeding in regard to the property as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in ~uch proceedings cannot be said to deprive the owner of his property without due proce~s of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections. In the same case Mr. Justice Bradley, in his concurring opinion, said: "In judging what is due process of law, respect must be had to the cause and objeccof the taking, whether under the taxing power, the power of eminent domain, or the power of assessment for local improvements or some of them, and if found to be suitable in the special case it will be adjudged to the due process of law; but if found, to he arbitrary, oppressive and unjust, it may be declared to be not due process of law."
In addition to these guarantees the Constitution provides that-"No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend his own cause in any of the Courts of the State .in person, by attorney, or both." Code 4996. As construed by the Commissioners the act of October 14th, 1879, is obnoxious to all the foregoing provisions of the Constitution. It takes away from the companies the right to manage their own property as it deprives them of all control of their income. It does this without notice and without an opportunity, to appeal to the Courts for redress except in a manner so impaired as in the language of the Commi~sioners to make litigation dangerous." And it so discriminates against the rights of the corporations as to constitute the Commission their Legislature, their prosecutor and their judge. Such a law, so administered, must be "arbitrary, oppressive and unjust." Should it not be amended? Should not these defects be removed? The last objection in the report is to an amendment, which would provide for the exercise of the constitutional right guaranteed to every perc son to prosecute or defend his own case in any of the Courts of the State in person, by attorney, or both" or which would provide a mode of confirmiug or 'contesting the action of the Commission in the ordinary courts of ju.tice. And the reason assigned for ignoring these great and fundamental constitutional rights is, that the Commissioncrs recommend themselves as better qualified for regulating railroads than a transitory Legislature or the courts of the State. A court of equity has always been considered competent to adjust the most complicated accounts and to mould'their decrees to suit every possible condition of affairs. Surely, with the valuable aid of a decision from the Commission, which would be the subject of review on any appeal, a court of equity in Georgia is as competent to ascertain and decree what is a just and reasonable rate as was the Illlnois court in the case of Cosborough vs. the St. Louis & Cairo Railroad Company. For many years all these questions in monarchical England have been first determined b)' the Railroad Commission, with the right to appeal to the courts and the House of Lords.

104

Why should not the same enlightened policy prevail in the democratic

republican State of Georgia? The Commissioners say because her

courts are incompetent. If' the reason is good, the efficiency of the

courts should be improved; but the right of every person within the

limits of the State to appeal to them should not be impaired. Do not

forget what Lord Coke called the emphatical words of "Magna Charta :"

'" Rulli vendemus, nulli negabimus, aut differemus rectum vel justi-

tiam."

Very respectfullv,

W. S. CHISHOLM.

GOVERNOR BROWN ON THE RAILROAD COM~nssION.
The Senate committee having reported the bill yesterday morning that had been agreed on in the committee for the modification of the pGwers of the Railroad Commission, and a good deal having been said and written recently on the subjec.t by various persons, the following interview with Governor Brown on the subject will be of interest:
Reporter-" Governor, what is your opinion as to the' propriety of the passage of the bill reported by the Senate committee upon the subject of the modification of the powers of the Railroad Commisbion ?"
Governor Brown-" I have not lately been taking any part in the discussions on that subject, and have not approachea members of the Legislature, nor have I undertaken in any manner whatever to influence their action; but my opinions on that question have, I think, been pretty well understood for several years past, and I entertain no opinion on that or any other important question aflecting the rights and the interests of the people of Georgia, that I am unwilling to make public if the occasion seems to require it."
Reporter-" Before you proceed further allow me to enquire whether you advocate abolishing the Commission, or whether you think there is among railroad men a disposition to have it abolished?"
Governor Brown-" I do not advocate the aholition of the Commission, nor do I believe the railroad men of Georgia entertain any expect'ltion that the Commission will be abolished, nor do they desire to abolish it. A Commission of wise, judicious men, possessing appropriate powers, and not monarchical powers, is, in my opinion, proper under all the circumstances, and I have no wish to see it destroyed, nor do I think the people ought to consent to the destruction of the Commission"
Reporter-" Then you are not opposed to the Commission; but yOll are opposed to what JOU cal~ 'monarchical powers possessed by the Commission?' "
Governor Brown-" Yes; that is substantially correct. I suppose no one will question the fact that tne Railroad Commission of Georgia possesses extraordinary powers. In every other branch of business in the State, with which I am familiar, the owner of property has the right to control his own property, to fix prices subject to tha common law rules applicable in such cases, and, in the main, to regulate his own affairs."
" The Commission does not permit the owners to make their own rates, No matter how low nor how reasonable they might be as made

105
by the Railroad Company, the privilege is absolutely denied to the com. pany, and the Railroad Commission, many times not familiar with all the facts and circumstances connected with the case, sits down and fixes a rate which each company may charge for transportation and passage fare, and having fixed the rates they establish rules and regulations for the government of the companies, and there is a severe penalty for diso beying or disregarding those laws. The law requires them to give no notice to the owners of the property, or those who manage it, of the time or place when they will fix the rates. All that the railroad men know about it, is that the Commission regulates that matter, and in ac~ordance with its own good pleasure, it announces the result of its deliberation in its own way whenit pleases, and no one has the right to demand a hearing in advance. In other words, the Commission has the power to fix the rates without any notice to, or hearing from those entrusted with the management of the railroad property, and the railroad companies are required to conform to the rates fixed by the Commission.
" And if the rates are fixed so ruinously low that the practice of such rates would soon drive the company into bankruptcy, there is no remedy for the company as there is no appeal permitted to any court or any .judicial tribunal of any character from this sovereign decision of the Commission. One of the fundamental principles of :Magna Charta in England was the right of appeal to the courts for redress. It has been regarded as a part of the birth right of every freeman in America, as well as in England, to have their rights adjudicated by judicial tribunals. The right to petition for the redress of grievances, and the right to appeal to the courts for relief are inalienable rights, and so far as I know, they are protected in all the States of the Union and by the general Government. No matter how humble the person or how insignificant the right, if it is a right of property, and is illegally invaded, the party has the privilege to go into the courts and have his rights adjndicated. But when the Railroad Commission of Georgia fix a rate, no power of appeal is given. The Commission is sovereign and supreme so far as this power of fixing rates is concerned, and there is no appeal from it, and no right to be heard in any State Court or United States Court. The rates may be so low as to drive the company into bank1'uptcy in one year and destroy the entire value of the stock of the company and render it unable to pay its bonded debt ;. in other words it may be so low as to amount to absolute confiscation of the property of the company and still there is no redress in the courts. The omnipotent Commission have said, "This shall be the rate," and the courts are powerless to grant redress. In a word, the Commission fixes the rates which shall be charged for the use of the property. The company has no power to fix its own rates. The Commission prescribes rules for governing the company in operating the road. If the company violates these rules, a heavy penalty is annexed, and no matter how oppressive or onerous the decision may be, there is no appeal. The pow. er of no sovereign in Europe is more autocratic over the property of his . subjects than is the power of the Railroad Commission with the rate

106

making power in its hands, and the right of appeal denied to the rail

road companies.

"Entertaining these opinions as to the arbitrary and unreasonable

powers of the Commission, I hav,e no hesitation in saying that in my

opinion those powers ought to be modified.

.

- "The paragraph of the Constitution of the State, applicable to this

subject, is in this language:

"The power and authority of regulating railroad freight and passenger-

tariffs, preventing unjust discriminations and requiring reasonable and

just rates of freigh tand passenger tariffs, are hereby conferred upon the

'General Assembly, whose duty it shall be to pass lawsfrom time to time to-

~regulate freight and passenger tariffs, to prohibit unjust discriminations.

on the various railroads of this State, and to prohibit said railroads from

charging other than just and reasonable rates, and to enforce the same

by adequate penalties."

"Now, it will be observed that this provision of the Constitution of

the State says nothing whatever about the Railroad Commission or the

Legislature of Georgia making rates or fixing rates shat shall be

charged by a railroad company. It gives the authority of regulating

railroad freights and passenger tariffs, preventing' unjust discriminations.

and requiring reasonable and just rates of freight and passenger tariffs.

It is one thing to create and another to regulate. The very language of

the Constitution itself shows that it was not the purpose of the conven-

tion which framed it to confer upon the Legislature the power of creat-

ing or making rates of freight and passenger tariffs. The object of the

convention doubtless was to permit each railroad company to publish

its own schedules of freight and passenger rates, and it intended that.

the Legislature should enact laws to prohibit unjust discrimination, and requiring that rates should be reasonable and just. After the rates have. ",

been made by the railroad company and the laws have been passed by

the Legislature requiring reasonable and just rates, and prohibiting un-

just discrimination, any citizen would have the right to complain to the

proper authority that the rates fixed by the railroad company are un-

reasonable or unjust, or that the company is unjustly discriminating

against him, and it would be the duty of the tribunal created by the

General Assembly, whether it should be called Railroad Commission, or

by some other name, to adjudicate the question whether the rates are--

reasonable, or whether discrimination exists under the rules governing

in such cases.

"After the tribunal has made the decision, there should then be an

appeal from that decision through the superior court to the supreme

court in the State, as in all other cases where the rights of property are.

involved.

'~Again, it is very evident that it was not the intention of the convention

that formed the Constitution of the State, that thc Legislature should.

confer upon the Railroad Commission the rate-making powers, and then.

confer upon them the power of deciding whether the rates made by'

107
them are reasonable and just without the right of appeal to the courts. Ii is obvious from the language used in the Constitution that the convention which made the Constitution intended that the Legislature should by law prescribe the rules necessary to prevent unjust discrimination and to Sfcure reasonable rates. The language is, "Whose duty it shall be to pass laws ffom time to time to regulate freight and passenger tariffs and prevent unjust discrimination." Now, I suppose it will not be contended by anybody that the Legislature could transfer its power by delegation to the Railroad Commission and authorize it to pass laws from time to time to regulate freights and passenger tariffs.
"To do this the Legislature must abdicate its own legitimate authority, and confer it upon the Railroad Commission, of passing laws from time to time to regulate freights, etc.
"As matters now stand, the Legislature has established a Railroad Commission and the Railroad Commission has taken the supreme control of this whole question, and claims that there is no appeal from its decisions to the courts, and it would seem to follow that its powers are sovereign and unlimited.
"The Commission does not regulate freights. It makes or creates schedules of freights. The Legislature does not from time to time pass laws to regulate freights, but the Commission passes such laws at its. pleasure, by "order No. 10" or "order No. 20," of which the railroad companies mayor may not have had notice in advance, as the sovereign will of the Commission may determine."
Reporter-"Then you think the Railroad companies should fix their own rates, and the Legislature should pass proper laws for the regulation of just and reasonable rates and the just prevention of unjust discrimination."
Governor Brown- "Yes, that is correct. The owners of the property, . those who have inuested their money in it, whose interest it is to work it wisely and jndiciously, should have the right to fix the rates themselves. Any citizen claiming that the rate is nnreasonable and unjust should have the right to appeal to the proper Court, or to the Railroad Commission as matters now stand, and ask that the Railroad company be cited to appear to show cause why the rate should be changed or why it. shonld not be punished for maintaining unjust rates, or for unjust discrimination. Jmt as any other case is brought before the proper tribunal, the complainant setting forth his cause of complaint, and the defendant being called on to answer; and the rights of the respective parties should be adjudicated in Court as any other rights are adjudicated and provision should be made for the speedy hearing and decision in" each case. The right to hold property, which is fundamental, and is pro- teeted by the Supreme law of the State and cannot be secured in any other manner, and the State of Georgia cannot afford to establish a Commission with power at its pleasure to trample upon these right.."
Reporter-"If the Senate bill should pass, what will be the effect in. practice? Will there b~ much litigation, or many appeals?"

J08
Governor Brown-"No! such a thing will be very rare. The very fact that the Railroad Commission exists, and that there are laws against -extortion and unjust discrimination and unjust rates, will make the Railroad companies cautious in fixing rates and in the management of the property under their control. There will probably velY seldom exist a -case where there are unjust rates or unjust discrimination. The Railroads and the public will soon bllcome familiar with the rules on these "questions, and they will tryon both sides to conform to them. Occasion,'sionally a cas~ will be hrought before the Commission for decision, and when the Commission ceases to be supreme in its powers, being amenable to law and to public sentiment,' it will be careful in its rulings and -decisions, and there will probably be nu appeal by either party from the decision cautiollsly made by the Commission.
"We may probably judge 0: this matler by the results in other coun-
tries. In England, where there is a Railroad Commission with the powers of a high Court of the realm we are informed that there is very rarely aease heard in the Court. The rules in reference to rates, to discrimination, to extortion, etc, are so well understood both by the Rallroads and the public, that there is seldom a case heard in the Court, though the "Court is always ready to hear any case that may arise.
"In Massachusetts which was one of the first States to create a Railroad Commission, the powers of the Commission were very limited; they simply heard complaints and acted as an advisory body, intermediary between the complainant and the Railroad company, and we are informed upon high authority that the advice given by the Commis'lion is al.most invariably taken by the company and the other party, and that an immense amount of litigation is saved to the company and the shippers by this sort of intervention on the part of the Commission. Practically .. there would be no difficulty about it if the Railroad companies were permitted to make their own rates and power of appeal existed in favor -of either party dissatisfied with the decision, when the question has been brought before them.
"The shipper claimlllg to be injured, would feel that his rights had to be adjudicated according to law, and that there could be no favoritism of a tribunal of absolute power.
The railroad company knows that its legal rights would be protected, and no longer fearing a tribunal whose authority it considers unreasonable, would be willing to make sacrifices even to keep the peace, and to keep out of litigation. The railroad commission being hedged in by law, would be cautious, and the result would be that in a ~hort time there would be very little litigation or trouble growing out of this great question,"
Reporter--"What effect do you think the powers given the railroad ,commission have upon the investment in railroads in Georgia?"
Governor Brown-"I have reason to know that it has had a very injurious effect. The railroad commission was created, I believe, in 1879 just before the great commercial boom commenced. The boom followed

109

and everything went wild. Almost ~ny sort of management in any-

sort of business was successful, money was plentiful and credit was un- -

limited.

,

"Some of the railroad companies may have watered their stock, or-

taken steps that should not have been taken, and that under other cir-

cumstances they would not have taken. N otwihstanding all this, the-

times were such, that the railroads could bear the dictation of the com-

mission and still sustain themselves, and in the midst of that boom,

some northern capital was brought into Georgia and additional roads-

were built, which have since gone into the hands of receivers. But the

bubble has burst and we have found ourselves in the midst of reasona-

bly hard times, and the whole situation has greatly changed. There is

today hardly a railroad in Georgia that is doing more than a living bus-

iness. If the present state of things should last a few years longer,

most of them will follow the example of the East Tennessee, Virginia

and Georgia railroad, and go into the hands of receivers. There will be,

little or no capital in the mean time invested in building railroads

where they are most needed in this state. Millions of capital belonging

to citizens of Georgia, many of them widows and orphans, will be lost.

"No judicious. prudent man who has to work for his money and know

how he got it and how to take care of it, wonld invest it in railroad

steck with a power over it, as soon as it is invested, that is absolnte, and

from whose dictation there is no appeal. There are a dozen other rail-

roads that ought to be built in Georgia to penetrate counties and sec-

tions that are now without the advantages of railroads. The people

along the line of the contemplated railroad are not able to build them

themselves, as they were left poor at the termination of the war, and they

'" have not accumulated enough surplus to engage in such an enterprise.

And as the matter now stands, Northern capitalists, who are looking out

for any profitable investment, will not put their money where it is sub-

ject to such unlimited power, with no right to make their own schedule

of rates, and no right to appeal. If the powers of the Commission

should be modified, so as to bring them within reasonable bounds: and a

guarantee should be given that capital invested in railroads in Georgia

will in future be protected and allowed to make a reasonable per cent.

upon the investment, there would in a short time be several important

railroad enterprises pushed forward in Georgia, and a unmber of shorter

rllads run from trunk lines into the different counties would soon be-

built. But I predict that it will not be done for an indefinite period, if

the present state of things is continued in existence. And this c~ution

about investment is 1I0t confined simply to railroad property. When~the

impression goes to New York, and other Northern centers, where accu-

mulated capital seeks investment, that Georgia is dealing harshly with

her railroad property, capitalists, who are naturally timid about invest-

ments, will at once say, "that is enough," and I prefer to put my capital

somewhere else, where they have a different idea of prctecting the rights

of property." We can not, therefore, in my opinion, 10Jk for any large

110
. amounts of foreign capital to seek investment in Georgia, until we conform our laws and regulations to those of other States, and show a dispoosition to protect the rights of property in the fullest mannbr, allowing the right of appeal, with the guarantee of an unprejudiced hearing in . our higher Courts, wherever the rights of property are involved."
Reporter: "I should infer from what you state that you are not anxious to invest in the new Railroad enterprises in the present state of things."
Governor Brown: "I owned considerable Railroad stock some years ago, but 1 have thought it judiciou~ to get rid of it. 1 now own a very little. The people are always ready to encourage everybody to invest their money in the oODlltruction of new Railroadil, but as soon as the Railroad is completed the public expect to coufiscate it to their own use, by putting it under absolute control, and fixing rates which will never pay a return upon the capital invested. The Juries often give ten times the damage against a Railroad company that they would, acting under the solemnity of the same oath, give as between two private individuals. Taking the Legislation of the county, the practices in the Courts, and the general disposition to regard Railroad corporations as possessing no rights which anybody is bound to -respect, has greatly changed my opinions in reference to the propriety of investing in Railroad stocks. While there ;is a number of sections in -Georgia that would be greatly benefitted, and property greatly increased in value by the building of Railroads into those sections, I do not see in the present state of things, any promise of remuneration to parties investing their capital in those roads. Until there is a change, I do not propose to be one of the number who make investments, knowing at the time, that I am putting my money where it will be under the absolute control of others, and where I cannot look for , any return from it."
Reporter: "Do you know what course the Railroad Commission are taking in reference to the bill now pending before the Senate for curtail',ing their powers?"
Govel'llor Brown-;' I lila not; but I take it for granted they are taking no part whatever in it. When the press and the people and the General Assembly are discussing the question as to what is an appropriate limitation of the powers of the Commission, it would certainly be exceedingly indelicate for them to interfere in that discus~ion, or be guilty of lobbying or taking any steps with a view to controlling the action of the . General Assembly. The persons composing the Railroad Commission are gentlemen of high character, who doubtless possess a keen sense of propriety. The question -now hefore the country is, 'shall their powers be limited?' It w\,uld place them in the attitude of grasping for power, if they should intermeddle or exercise their personal influence in attempting to maintain the arbitrary powers they now possess. 1 am very . well satisfied, therefore, from my knowledge of the high character of these gentlemen, that they cou:ld not afford to engage in any such practice. "They are modl'st .gentlemen, who cannot appear before the public lauding rt heir own practices, .oallting of t1:eir own performances, or urging an

111
-enlargement of their powers or insisting on a retention of the arbitrary powers already possessed.
"They will doubtless leave all these questions to the General Assembly, permitting their acts to speak for themselves, and being content with the reward that always awaits modest merit.
" If, therefore, you have heard that they are interfering in this matter 'With a view to controlling legislation, I feel no hesitation in saying you have been misinformed."
GENERAL A. R. LAWTON ON THE RAILROAD COMMISSION.
A Con~titution reporter called on General A. R. Lawton last evening at the IGmball,and talked with him concerning the staterailroad commission, and the effort now being made and which appears to meet with general approval, of limiting its powers so as to prevent unjust discrimnation against the railroads of the state.
"General, you have been acquainted with the workings of the present railroad commission of Georgia. Does it retard the progress of the .state, and if so, how?" asked the reporter. - "Yes," replied the general, "I have been acquainted with the workings of the present railroad commission law from the time of its enactment until the present time. My relations to some of the railroads in the state and the fact that I was favorable from the first to a properly 'organized commission caused me to take unusual interest in the result to flow from it. I was startled at first by the extraordinary amount of power that was given by the act to the commissioners. Such power as had never been conferred upon three men over the same amount of private property by any government within my knowledge. I had occa.sion to hear the act frequently discussed in private conversation by men <:>f business outside the state of Georgia, and the invariable opinion expressed was that the railroads could not successfully operate under its provisions. That it was evidently but an experiment which Georgia was trying in good faith,but that it would soon be found to need material modification, and it was taken for granted that such modification would .soon follow. I did venture to hope, however, at first, that the intelli,gence and high personal character ofthe commissioners appointed would mitigate many of the results that were feared. In this I have been painfully disappointed. The exercise of all the powers given and the most liberal construction of the act, and the constant inclination exhibited to have new powers added have destroyed all hope of an administration more conservative than the act itself. Indeed, it was expecting too much that the grant of unlimited powers would not create an in.creasing appetite for its exercise. This had attracted the attention of in. vestors every where outside of the state of Georgia, and the result has been a serious diminution in the market value of our railroad property. It took time to produce this unhappy result, but it has been working .surely, if slowly, nor is it surprising, for who would risk ownership in a property under absolute control of others whose eligibility to the con-

112
trolling office is that they have no interest in any property of like character. I have no hesitation, therefore, in answering that the existence of this act, and the manner in which its provisions are administered, has. already retarded, and will, with increasing rapidity, retard the progress of the state of Georgia.
"1 do not elaborate, but content myself with this mere outline." "Have you read the bill now pendiug in the Senate, and does it change
the laws so as w make the situation fairer between the Railroads and
the people?" "I have carefully read the bill now pending in the Senate," was the-
reply, "and it does not contain the full measure of justice to the Railroads nor disposes of all the wrongs under which they are suffering. But it does make changes which address themselves to a plain sense of justiceand fair dealing. It virtually makes the Railroad Commissioners a supervisory body. While it does not leave them full power to issue orders privately concocted in a back parlor withont previous notice, of such intention, which can change the value of the Railroad property by millions of dollars within thirty days, it leaves with the Railroad officials. power to initiate rates, and after they shall be annc,unced the Commission can investigate them, hear all complaints and apply the pr'oper remedy if one is needed. It also provides for appeals from any action of the Commissioners by either the Railroads or IIny portion of the people to be effected to the tribunals of the State which have been created to settle all differences which effect the liberty or property of any citizen, who should
be afraid w leave the decision of their rights to the Courts. After all,
the great value of a properly constituted Hailroad Commission consists in the moral power that it exercises and the publicity that it gives, through their action and their reports, to any wrongs perpetrated by the Railroadcompanies. After many years' experience the MassachusettsRailroad Commission declared that ill no single instance have they failed
w adjust any difference. between a Railroad company and a community
patronizing it, after full investigation, a distinct expression of opinion on their part as to the wrong and the remedy. But yet that Commission has no power to enforce its orders or decrees, but simply reports and makes public the result. The publicity which they give, and the anxiety of the Railroads to avoid the effect of any report that they may make against them, have been found quite sufficient and accomplished thevaluable purposes for which that Commission was created.
"The bill now before the Senate still contemplates large powers in the hands of the Georgia Commissioners which Massachusetts has never given to theirs.
"I will add that the Railroads in assMachusetts are well known to be among the very best managed in this country.
"The importance of the passage promptly of the bill now before the Senate cannot be over-estimated."

113
The Commission Law----An Argument That It Should Be Modified.
An appeal shonld be allowe,l to tbe Courts from the decision of the Railroad Commiesion. It is amazing that tllis proposition should be denied; for to withhold thi, right to go to the Courts of the' country for redress is to establish a principle that is destructive of liberty and abhorrent to the sellse of natural justice. The Commission deals with nothing but property and the rights of property, and dctermincs the amounts Railroads should charge for carrying ,goods and passengers, and prevents unjust discriminations. It deals with dollars and cents. It fixes the price to be charged for certain work. It makes the contract betwe,'n the shipper and the carrier, and says how much shall be paid for the work, and its decision is final. Neither party can appeal from it. The one must pay and the other receive just what the Commission says. This places the property involved on both sides at the will of the Commission. At this time prejudice runs high against Railroads and the Commission is controlling them. This enormous power is now being applied to them. But suppose matters should change. Suppose we should hal'e lit some future time Commissioners who would favor Railroads and seek to promote their interest at the expense of the people, and :his power should then be applied to the shipper; it would be the same power only it would take the other turn. In the different application of the power the citizen would" groan under his burden, and he would read the Constitution of his conn try and ask why is the right to appeal to the Conrts denied me? All other persons enjoy that right, but my property is held at tha will of the I{ailroad Commission, aud I am made to pay ten prices for what I get in return. How long would the people'. submit tosuch an outrage on their rights?
It is the history of mankind that if an irresponsible power be lodged with anybody it will, soon or late, be used to destroy liberty. Every p.~rson should be allowed to go the Courts to have his ri!'(hts of property passed upon Railroads are property. Th~y are owned by somebody, and whether the owner resides in Georgia or in Europe makes no difference, it is property still and is entitled to the protection of the Jaw. That protection as to all other property is found in the court house. A railroad company lllust be hotly pursued when it flees to a jury for protection from wrong. Bllt let it be remembered by every man who knows or cares anything about the happiness or the safety of the people that there is no public enemy so great or so much to be dreaded as irresponsible power. No people should allow themselves to become accustomed to the existence of such a power, there is danger in such familiarity. We have a pointed illustration of this: In 1881, only four years ago, the Railroad Commission recommended the grauting of the right to appeal from their decisions. In their report they 'aid:
"A residuall'emedy remains, howevel", still to be provided, viz., an improved mode of reviewing the action of the Commission, when bona
8

114

fide believed to be erroneous by any party interf:sted-railroad, citizen or community.

Suppose a tariff made by the Commission, in their opinion jilst amI

reasonable, but in the honest opinion of the officer" of the railroads lower than is just and reasonable, and not properly remunerative; or ill the opinion of some citizen or community as too hiKh, or discriminating unfavorably against such citizen or locality. Does the law as it stands sufficiently provide for testing the question? P,'rhaps not so fnlly as it might."
"It is true that the Commission itself is always open for a new trial, and that without formality. But aside altogether from pride of opinion,

or other fault, an error of judgment is not easily cured in those who

make it, and so an appeal to some outside tribunal is usually the s'afest

mode of securing a fair rehearing.

* '* .. '*'

.. * * *

"It remains to make the provisions for appeal more complde and sat-

isfactory.

** ** ****

"On the whole, very generally, with a properly constituted Commis-

sion, the safety of all interests would finally be felt to, rest in its de-

cisions, as safer from its constitution than a jury, and more especially

educated than the courts, and so the inclination would be to appeal to

rather than from it."

Since then they have drifted to the position that no appeal should be

allowed, and further still, that it cannot be allowed because the Consti-

tution intrusted the jurisdiction to the Legislature, and not to the courts.

The position appears to be that in fixing rates, that is, in making contracts with the citizens, the Commission cannot be controlled by the courts, It must have been painful to the Commissioners to have been driven to thiB conclusion; for, as they expressed it in the l'('port, "An error of judgment is not easily cured by those who make it," and therefore a motion for a new trial before them would not be much of a remedy. It may be they find consolation for the parties who are interested, in the sentiment expressed above in their report, that appeals would be rare any way, because the interest involved would come to feel that the Commission was "safer from its constitution tban a jury, and more especially educated than courts, and so the inclination would be to appeal

to rather than from it."

It is a pity that the Constitution should have declared that the right of trial by jury "should remain inviolate" when here within reach WM a "safer" thing. The present Commissioners are gentlemen above reproach, and no doubt they are as faithful te> the official trust as can be. The author of this article knows them too well to doubt, but they are mere men, and no man should be trusted with such powers. They fully recognized in other years the propriety and justice of the appeal ; now they devote pages in their report to show that there should be no appeal from their decisions. The distinguished chairman of theIr Commission

115

is a lawyer of eminence, and no man has served his tltate more worthily, conseious of his own rectitude, knowing, as he vell does, that in spite of everything he Can do, and he will do whatever he believes to be right, I yet think he underestimates the danger to the public of the existence of such power as this Commission has. He has read too well the history of the past, to fix upon the institutions of his country the principle that in any case where the right of property is involved, the citizen may not have that right passed upon by a jury. From prejudice or passion a jury may go wrong; but taking it all in all, with the checks and restraints of the law, we must still believe that the court is "safer" than any irresponsible tribunal that ever was created. It is not. the personnel of the C.ommission that is objected to. It is the principle of irresponsible power, that every man should throttle as fast as he can get to it.
The legal aspect of the matter does not appear very difficult. It is a mistake to suppose that this is purely, and in its details, a legislative question. The position of the commission is this: The remittal of the rate-making power, either directly to the railrpads themselves, or indirectly to the conrts, would be an abdication by a General Assembly of powers which the Constitntion expressly enjoins upon the legislative department. The Constitution provides that the power and authority of regulating railroad freight and passenger tariff, etc. ,are conferred upon the General Assembly, whose duty it shall be to pass laws from time to time to regulate freights and passenger tariffs, and enforce the same by ltdequate penalties. The power and authority thus conferred, was declaratory of what already existed at common law. It is inherent in every sovereignty; it has been exereised in England from time immemorial, and in this conntry from its first colonization, and recent legislation on the subject establishes no new principle in the law, but only gives a new effect to an old one. See Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113, and Chicago Railroad vs. Iowa, 94, U. S. P., 161.
By the Constitution the power to regulate is given to the Legislature, and it must pass laws from time to time to regnlate and enforce the same by penalties. Our Supreme Court in the Georgia Railroad case, about this Commission, says:
" It was not expected that the Legislature should do more than pass laws to accomplish the ends in view. When this was done its duty had been discharged. All laws are carried into execution by means of officers appointed for that purpose; some with more, others with less, but all must be clothed with power sufficient for the efficient execution of the law to be enforced."
In the ,head note it is said: " Nor were they required to cnter into the details of settling freights and tariffs over all the railroads in the State. The Railroad Commissioners are officers appointed to carry into execution the laws pllssed by the Legislature, and arc constitutional officers. "The powers of the Railroad Commissioners are notlegislative; the

116

power to adopt rules and regulations to clJ'l'ry into effect a law already

passed, differs from a power to enact a law."

The Constitution does not expressly declare what means shall be em-

ployed by the Legislatlue in exercising this power, but the principle

which guides them is well understood. and it is this: Such means shall

be [,dopted as are in harmony with all the provisions of the Constitu-

tion, and consonant with the spirit of our institutions. It may adopt

for its purpose any existing government machinery; or it may creatc

new machinery in harmony with the old. The complaint is that it madc

new machinery not in harmony with the old, and one reason is, that the

. right of appeal to the courts is with-held. The Legislature must pass

laws regulating freights, etc. No other department of government can

do that; it belongs solely to the Legislature. But the mode of procedurc

is a different thing. The power to declare what shall be a crime is con-

ferred on the Legislature. It is inherent in the legislative department,

We might state the principle this way: The power and authority regu-

lating the conduct of persons by declaring what acts shall constitute

crime are hereby conferred on the General Assembly, whose duty it

shall be to pass laws from time to time to regulate such conduct and

enforce the same by adeqnate penalties.

Such a provision would be the cquivalent of that with reference to

the railroads. It exists in point of fact, though not in name. The leg-

lature passes the law and the courts enforce it. The Constitution says

the General Assembly shall by law forbid the sale or distribution of in-

toxicating drinks within two miles of election precincts, and fixes the

punishment for any viobtion of the same. This is the same as saying

the power and authority of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks is

conferred on the legislature, and it shall pass laws prohibiting it and

enforce the same by adequate penalties. How is the duty to be per-

formed? The reply is, "by due process of law," and not otherwise.

Every word in the Constitution is read by the light of all the other

words. It is to be understood as one part of an entire instrument and

when the railroad cla.use is viewed as a part of the whole, it is simply

this: In enforcing it, the Legislature shall remember that railroads are

property, and protection to property IS a paramount duty of the Gov-

ernment, and shall be impartial and complete; that no person shall be

deprived of property except by due process of law, and the right of trial

by jury shall remain inviolate.

PATAULA.

Mr. Reese Speaks Upon the Railroad Commission of Georgia.
A Constitution reporter met Judge VV. M. Reese Saturday, and the following conversation ensued:
Reporter- Were you not a member of the Legislature of 1879 which passed the act establishing the Railroad Commission for this State, and did you not have a part in framing that act?
Judge Reese-I was not a member of the Legislature of 1879; therefore I had no part as a member of that body in framing or passing that

117
act. While the Legislature was in session I had before it several bills for the purpose of carrying out the Constitution of 1877. At the request of several prominent citizens of the State, Mr. Samuel Barnett and myself prepared a bill to establ ish a Railroad Commission as the best means of executing the constitntional mandate. 'The bill, after being perfected by us as far as practicable, I carried to Atlanta and submitted to Senator McDaniel. After some important alterations suggested by him, the bill was left with him to be introduced, through the Railroad Committee, to the Senate. The bill was subsequently passed by both branches of the Legislat.ure without material alteration. It was well understood by the framer of the hill, that it was imperfect and would require change "from time to time," that, like all other human schemes of legislation, experience wonld show the weak places. That provision of the act as passed allowing the Commissioners to recover for the State a penalty from one to five thousand dollars for a refusal to respect the rules and regulations of the Commission, was especially objectionable to myself, and was only inserted by us became it was understood that the bill could not pass without it. The section containing the penalty clause just referred to really amounted to a prohibition from contesting the regulations of the Commission. I thought with an intelligent, skillful and impartial Commission this section might not hurt and when the bitterness and heat of the time passed away, it could be modified. Almost the first step taken by the Railroad Commission in forcing the same rates on all the roads of the State without regard to their cost, location or business revealed the necessity of changing that portion of the law. The subsequent action of the Oommission in making radical changes in the schedule'S of freight charges established by the railroad companies without the slightest notice or consultation with the managers of the companies confirmed the opinion that the dangerous power should be modified. It is too plain for argument that common sense and justice both require a railroad company by the officers honorably believing that the regulations of the Commission are not just and reasonable refuses to execute them and stands a suit and loses the same, it should not be forced to pay beside" exemplary damages," which the act gave to parties injured by their refusal, and also heavy penalties not less than one thousand dollars and possibly five thousand dollars, as a jndge might determine.
Reporter-You think, then, that the courts of the State should be opened to the railroad companies on easier terms ?
Judge Reese-You are right. I do so think. While I am a sincere friend to a Commission, and think it necessary both to the people and railroad companies, and many thousands of the people of this State, embracing people of all classes, have come to the conclusion that it is cruelly unjust to keep the law so that the railroad companies of the State cannot even test the justice and reasonableness of the rates fixed by the Commission,except at the risk of incurringpenalties extending from Onl) to fivl) thousand dollars. The Commission itself, by itS:repeated rec

118
ommendation to thE Legislature to change the law and give the right of appeal from thcir regulations before the same becomes operative, has publicly confessed that this law should be changed.
Heporter-But can the courts test the question of the reasonableness and justice of railroad rates Y Has the court the maclJinery to do this thing?
.Judge Heese-If the Commissioll, composed of Olle expert and two non-experts, can do it, a court can. Our courts can appoint auditors, one 01' morc, to try such (FlOstiolls and report to court, which report will aid the jury-if a jury is asked for. The Commissio'n has said in one of their own reports that this question can be so determined, anrl so said after scrious reflection. In fact, the Commission has designated its own action as a sort of audita report. ,Ve have the daily practice of the courts to establish the probability and possibility of the mode of handling sU0h cases.'
Reporter- 'Will not such chnnge of the law as you indicatc flood tho conrts with pitiful cases?
.Judge Reese--No, sir. This iden, put forth more to frighten the General Assembly, is a mere scarecrow. Dueh a result would not follow, because this class of cases would cost the railroad companies vastly more than thp amounts involved, in costs, lnwyers' foos flOd loss of time by their employees. From n long observation of the mode of .business of railroad companies, I say, with perfect security, that no person, natural or artifloial, has less toleration for pitiful cases and settles more of them. And if such an unreasonable mntter is started the legislature can easily restore the act of 1879.
Reporter-And will not the railroad companies when defeated in a contest over freight tariff, ohange it continually so as to keep up a perpetual fight, and in this way oppress the people?
.Judge Reese-Your question assumes that the railroad managers nre both knaves and fools. Knaves to use the liberty allowed them by the legislnturc in such a fraudulent manner, and fools to do that which the legislature can at once remedy by restoring the nct of 1879 and making a law forbidding a change of rntes without notice and in less than a fixed period of time.
Reporter-Well, what do you' think of the feature of the Maddox bill giving railroad companies the right to fix rates, subject to a review of the commission, with a distinct reservation of a right in the commission to keep,the revision in force untillitigntion is ended?
Jud!{e Reese--I am uuable to see the unconstitutionality of this feature of the Maddox bill, or how it can injure the people. Suppose a Railroad company should mnke an unjust rate of freights, what hinders parties mterested by combination and separately, from at once making issues upon all material parts of it. In les~ than sixty days from the time rates are published, the whole can be revised by the Cornmis"ion and changed to suit the views, and these changes kept in forl'e by the Commission until the end of a litigation in which the action of the Commis-

119
sion is accepted by the Courts as prima facie correct, and the burden of proof is throwu on the Railroad company to show the charges not to be correct. Admitting that the Reneral Assembly must by itself, or a Commission that make rules and regulations as to freight, there is no overwhelming necessity that the Commission and Legislature should blot out all established value and make new ones of their own. It is certainly just as much an exertion of the constitutional power to alter and revise ratesuxed by the Railroad Commission as to make entirely new rates. How and when the power of regulation shall be exercised is purposely, as I understand, left undefined and unlimited. The Commission can wait until rates are established by the Railroad companies, or it can go ahead and make rates in advance of the companies.
Other mode of action will be a regulation from time to time of the constitutional power. If their view is correct that the Commission must first make all the rates, why, I ask, did the Commission for several years simply make changes in the railroad rates? It will not do at this late day for the Commissioners to say we did not understand the constitution. There is such confusion as utterly destroys the value of their advice and opinion.
Reporter-Right here allow me to ask you if the act to establish the Railroad Commission can be altered, as I understand it is assumed that it cannot be?
Judge Reese-I must confess astonishment at your question. The Constitution of lS77 itself requires the General Assembly "from time to time to regulate freight and passenger tariffs" as it may determine to be wise. The very largest power is given to the General Assembly over the whole matter. It can interfere at any and all times with the action of the Commission and compel its-creator to do its bidding. There is nothing in the Constitution that the Commission created, for a day shall stand for all time, and it would be monstrous to so hold. If the Railroad Commission should ever set an undue influence over the Commission, how soon would it be seen that it was a mere creation for a particular emergency? The Legislature is sovereign on the subject, and well it sh,mld be.
Georgia Railroads---A Prominent Railroader on the Commission Law.
Mr. H. S. Haines, general manager of the Savannah, Florida & Western Railroad, and one of the best posted railroad men in the State, was seen yesterday by a Constitution reporter in reference to the bill now before the ::3enate to limit the power of the Railroad Commission. The following interview took place:
Reporter-" The Constitution would like to have your views on the practical effect of the Railroad Commission law. Have you any objection to giving them for publication ?"
.1 Not at all I wish it was in my power to let every man in the State know just what they are. The law has been in effect now for nearly six

120
years, anll whatever thpre is in it for goon or for han, it ought to bt'gin t<) show itself by this time."
Heporter-Has the law done any gooll ?
',r think it hns. It has set the railrowi manngers of the State to work
to find out what their relations should be with the people; and thei have been compelled to place br,fore thr' people the results of their inv('stigations and their own experienee.
"There is no doubt that before the Commission was established railroad ma1)agers fixed their rates arhitrarily-about as arbitmrily as the Hailroad Commission has done since; only with this difference, that tbeir intimate acquaintance with their own husiness led them to know what effeets the rates whieh they made were going to have upon their own business and upon the business of their eustomers, whether at competitive points or at loeal stntions.
"Since the Commission has heen established they have had to take some of their own nwdicine, aJl(1 I think with wholesome "ffeet. 1 hnve Jlever fanei"d tl)( arhitrary ways of some railroad !Jwnagers. They
"''''Ill to forget that they had a duty to perform to tIle people as well as
to the railroads, and if the suffering' they have gnne through for the last six years has had the effeet of teaching thelIl this, it will not be without service."
Heporter- Well, has it not had some other good effect? "Not for the people interes'ed in Hailroad property. It has had some good effect for shippers, I suppose, here and there, where there have been great reduetions made in loeal rate~ by the Commi~sion. I think they ~aid in one of their report~ that they had saved an amount to the people of Georgia equal to the whole State tax. I do not know what the State tax of Georgia iR, but ~ay it is $1,000,000 1'('1' annum and that there are 1,500,000 people in the State, that would average about sixty-six cents per annum for each person in Georgia that the Oommission has mved for them out of the earning~ of Railroad~. If the Railroads had had that money it would have enabled them to pay five per cent. dividends on $20,000,000 of Railroad eapita1. "We Railroad men think that the p'Jople i)f Georgia would have been more benefitted if thi~ money had been ~pE'nt as dividends than if it had beeu lIistributed around in the way I havc stated; for right now the worst feature in the present condition of affairs is the utter oppoRition on the part of eapitalists to invest in Hailroad property in Georgia. "You had a statement in your paper the other day that there were projected Hailroad~ already chartered in this State requiring $26,000,000 of additional capital, and it might have been a good plan if the CommisRion could have granted the $1,000,000 they had taken out of the Hailroads already built to go towards paying dividends on the Railroads that were io be built, as thi~ would have very nearly paid five per cent. on the whole $26,000,000 which your paper showed was required for new Hailroad work." Reporter-I do not think the old railroads would like that much, to

121
have the money taken out of their earnings and used to encourage the eonstruction of competing roads.
"No, I think not. On second thought I believe we would rather divide out sixty cents apiece among all the population of Georgia every year than to have any rival railroads built."
Reporter-You mean that the railroad managers of the State do not want to see any more railroads buIlt?
"No, not exactly that, but we do not want to see any more built unless they are going to bring more business to the roads that are already in existence."
Reporter-Well, then, why do not the old railroad companies build roads to bring them more business?
"There is just where the shoe pinehes. The law as it now stands. or, at least, as it is now interpreted by the commission, has put a complete stop to any branch roads being built by existing railroad companies."
Hcporter-Ilow so? " Well, they have passed a rule that all branch roads shall be counted as part of the main line in making rates over them. ]<'or instance, there is a neighborhood ten miles from the line of our road, which we know as Milltown. The people wanted a braneh road, starting from Naylor, which is 140 miles from Savannah. We had made a survey for it, when we found that under the rates of the Commission, if we shipped firstclass goods from Savannah to Naylor, we were allowed fifty-seven cents per hundred pounds; but if we shipped them out to Milltown from Savannah, we would be allowed sixty cents per hundred pounds; that is three cents per hundred pounds for the road from Naylor to Milltown. As the business of Milltown would come to Naylor anyhow, there was no encouragement to build a branch road for the benefit of that neighborhood at our own expense. " When you get down to low-class freights, we would get over the b1"lnch one cent pel' hundred pounds, and in some cases only half a cent, for you must bear in mind that the highest possible rate, under the ruling of the Commission for freights over the braneh, would be but three eents per hundred pounds." Reporter-Is this the only brancll road on your line that you know about? "No; I happen t.o think of another. At Camilla, some years ago, some citizens, to their sorrow, undertook to build a railroad to Cuthbert, and tbey gra,led it ten miles to the Flint river, o[l[lmite Newt.on. They have be,'n in commnnication with ns several times about building this road. They offered to tnrn ol'er to llS all their property and franchises if we would take it, put the' rail" on it and operate it. Now, Camilla is 240 miles from Savannah. The late from Suval nah to Camilla is seventythree cents, and the rate for ten miles further would gi ve us one cent for first-c1a_s freight per hundred pounds over t.h"t branch road. So yOll see there is no inducement to build branch roads under that law." Reporter- Why do you not build the road under another name?

122
"Well, the Commission has been a little too smart for us in that respect. They say that these rates apply to any branch roads either owned, operated or controlled by the old corporation. S'l, if we built it under a different name they would still rule the same way."
RepOlter-Well, what are the people going to do for branch roads? " If they build themselves they are better off than if we do. If the people who own the line from Camilla to Cuthbert of which I just spoke, would build and operate it themselves, then if it was ten miles long they would get sixteen cents per hundred pounds. They could ch~rge sixteen cents per hundred pounds on what we could only charge one cent per hundred pounds if we either owned, operated or controlled it." Reporter-What do yOil think is the effect of making this difference between a road built as a britnch and under an independent corporation? "I think it ought to serve as a sort of protective tariff for Georgia capital, that is, if Georgians will put their own money in branch lines, they can charge sixteeu cents per hundred pounds, while, if the railroad companies go out of the State to borrow money to build these branch lines for the benefit of the people, they can only charge, say from one to three cents per hundred pounds over exactly the same piece of road." Reporter-"So you think there is not much chance for branch lines in the State at present?" " Not unless the people build them with their own money. This thing has worked out very curiously in some respects. Our company has been relaying its entire main line with steel rails. This left us with a large quantity of iron rails on hand. We did not want to sell it for old rail, and therefore we looked around for a suitable locality for branches to lay this iron rail on, and instead of building the branches in Georgia we have had to bulid them in Florida." Reporter-" How many miles have you built in Florida ?" ". You mean with this iron rail?" Reporter-" Yes." " About 5fty miles, and we are now having twenty miles graded that we will lay with this rail this winter." Reporter-' c And you think that but for the ruling of the Commission yon would have laid that rail in Georgia?" " I think it very probable thaf we would have laid forty or fifty miles of branch lines in the State, and besides this, we have rented out perhaps as much more rails as we have laid ourselves to private parties." Reporter-You are building a good deal in Florida then? "Well, yes. Our company and the companies associated with us have built this year in Florida over seventy-five miles of road." Reporter-Are you at work on any roads now? " Yes. We have just finished forty-three miles, not yet open for business, and we are at work on thirty-two miles more, and the Florida Southern Railway Oompany, which is interested with us, are building about eighty-four miles."

123
Reporter-How much road do you suppose is now under construction in Georgia?
" None at all in our part of the State. So far liS I know, not more that twenty-five or thirty miles is actually under way in the entire State. Of course, there is a good deal talked about, and some little work being done-but I count where active work is going on."
Reporter-How about the bill before the Senate? " I hardly know how to criticise Legiotors' work. I suppose that after all this bill is the result of the delibprations of the Hailroad Committee. I can only tell you how it will affect us, after it is tried, but it seems to me that it is doing the right thing when it gives the rate-making power back to the railroads." Reporter-Won't they abuse it just as they are accused of doing before there was a Commission? "No I do not see how they can, for if the people do not like the rates that ate made for them they are certain to go before the Commission with their complaints, and then the Commission will have just the same power to fix the rates that they have now." Reporter-What would be the difference then between the law if it is changed as proposed and as it is now? "There would be this very important difference: the railroad companies would make their own rates, lind the Commission would hear and determine any disputes about them. It is a great annoyance now to everybody who has business with railroads thllt they cannot talk the rates over with the railroad managers with whom they do business. They like to come into the railroad office and say that the rate on lumber or on naval stores 91' on anything else that they have to ship is so high that with present prices they are getting on their stuff, they can make nothing out of their shipments. This givcs the railroad manager the chance to go through the whole situation with the shippers and see what can be done. "1 know, in what I call 'the old times,' we used often to do this with mill men and shippprs of naval stores. Now when they come to us we have to refer them to the Commission, and, giving the CommiSSIOn full credit for desiring to do all that they can to favor the public it takes tlwm Bometime to get rollnd to it For in,tanc", I know of cases before them know that have been up for fully two months, and willuot be heard hefore the last of this or the first of next month. Now, if the law wa, modified so that the shipper and the "R dlroad nl('U could come right together and talk the situation over the relief could be given immediately, and only in the ev(-nt of a disagreement would they have to go before the Commission" Reporter--But, if you have the power to make your rates, won't you all put them back to the old figures? "No, that is impossible. The people have got accustomed to the new rates and if we were to attempt to make any very considerable general advance, I suppose the whole State would be up in arms against us at

124
once. The tendency has been for years, towards decreasing rates, even before the Commission came into power, but the trouble with their rates is, that they dropped too much all at once, before the Railroads had time to conform to the new situation, and it has brought great hardships on everybody connected with the roads. Indeed, I look upon it as a mere question of time when there must be a very general reduction in the wages of Railroad employes if this continued decrease in rates of freight is going to keep on."
Reporter-You mean tl:e rates made by the Commission? "I do not speak particularly of the rates made by the commission. I mean the rates at competitive points, as well as on local business. The public in general do not understand how a reduction ofone or two cents a hundred pounds on a very large freight business effects the net earnings of a railroad company. One cent a hundred means twenty cents a ton, and twenty cents a ton on one hundred thousand tons means $20,000, so that taking one cent a hundred off here and there cuts down the earnings of the railroad company, so that they must retrench every way they can, and I think the wages of the men will certainly be reduced if this cannot be stopped." Reporter-But you have not fully explained to me about what the railroad companies wonld do with the rates if they had again the making of them. Well,you must bear in mind that if we did attempt to increase the rates very materially, the whole matter would go to the commission. In nine cases out of ten rates are changed because some shipper wants it done. It is very seldom the case that a railroad company changes rates to get more revenue out of them, except that by reducii-Ig the rate they hope to get more business for the company." Reporter-Well, if the railroad people do not intend to increase the rates materially, why is it they are so anxious to get the rate-making power back again? "I think more because they are afraid of what the commission will do next than from any hope that they can m~tterially increase the local rates tls they stand now." The Senate Railroad Committee has reported some amendments to the House bill changing the Railroad Commission law. The House bill was a surprise in some respects, it did so little. It merely provides by law for notice to the railroads, which has recently been the practice. The Senate committee report amendments providing for an appeal to the Superior Oourt, these appeals to have precedence and to be decided at first term, unless continued for providential causes; and providing further that increase of rates shall not go into effect until thirty days after the beginning of the advertisement. The Commission itself has advised that the right of appeal be given, though it took the back track afterwards on alleged constitutional grounds. Its first position was, in our judgment, correct, and the ap-

125

peal should be given and the Commission itself should continue to desire it.
We trust that the Senate amendments will be adopted and ratified by the House. The Commission itself will be strengthened by such a measure, which will have a tendency to cure wide existing railway and popular dissatisfaction.

Opinions of the Press Throughout the State on the Senate Bill to Modify the Railroad Commission Law.

The Americus Recorder says: The Senate committee on railroads has

submitted a bill amending the Railroad Commission law, which we

think corrects the most odious feature of the law, while retaining all

. those provisions by which the 'people are protected from unjust dis-

crimination. The new bill in substance takes away the arbitrary power

of the Commission to fix rates, while at the same time it leaves them to

act as guardian of the public interests, and to protect the Dublic against

extortion or unjust discrimination. We regard the bill as a fair one, as

it gives the railroads a latitude in making rates such as is necessary in

conducting any business, while at the same time it throws all necessary

restrictions around them for the protection of the public. It makes the

law to conform with those of most other States, and removes the ob-

jections made by capitalists to investing their capital in railroads in this

State. It is a just law, SHch as the Recorder has for several years been

contending for, and we hope that it may speedily go into force.

The Sandersville Herald and Georgian says: The Railroad Commis-

sion bill, as now in force, with the friction it engenders, and the adjust-

ment of complications growing out ,of it, is a "vexed question."

The same convictions of duty that lead to the fostering of railroad

enterprises in the State, lead also to the constitution of a Commission,

that this great factor for public improvement should not become an en-

gine for public oppression. To silence the clamor against oppressive

rates by fixing just and equitable rates, and to see that no unjust dis-

criminations were practiced, were among the considerations that gave

rise to the Commission.

.

It, could not be expected that this massive and ponderous machinery

could be at once harmoniously adjusted. Inequalities and hardships

have been caused in these attempts, and now the Committee of Senators

after mature deliberation, have perfected a bill to obviate these ditler-

ences. While an investigation of its provisions should no' be overlook-

ed, yet the delibl1rate conclusions of sworn Senators, selected as conser-

vators if the general weal, should carry with them much of the force and

gravity of a verdict by an intelligent jury in the Courts of the country.

The abolishing of the Commission is not demanded by those that com-

plain of hardships received at th"ir hands; they only demand a modifi-

cation of their powers.

A great )",W of trade is, that competition regulates prices, and in the

matter of rates, freight and pas,,;enger, doubtless competition has had far

126
more to do in their reduction than other causes. The Senate Committee then has, we think wisely, left the fixi~g or making of rates to the corporations, ancl has placed the power to limit those rates iu the hands of the Commi"siollf'rs to prevent unjust charges. This seems to cover the pur~ pose for which the Commis"iou was created. While railroads shouldnot be engin"s of oppr"ssion, yet such potent factors tor rapid development should not be trammeled. .\ t present the bill seem., eq uitau]e ; time may SUggCRt other changes.
The Rome Daily Bulletin says:
Indeed, this bill leaves the Commission vested with the same power that the framers of the original law intended to confer upon it. It was the complaint of unjust discrimination in the transportation of freight by the railroads of the BtlLte that gave origin to the law creating a Railway Commission for Georgia. But this board of arbitrators has become a power from whose deoision it seems useless to appeal, and it can make or break railroads at the pleasure of its members.
If left without check, the railroads would be pretty certain to arrange their rates for their own gaiu, and to great injury to certain localities. So it is absolutely necessary to have a Railroad Oommission, and the bilI which the Senate committee has agreed upon, give. the Commission every power that should be vested in it. And we think, with Hon. Pat Walsh, that such a bill, "not abolishing the Commission, but shearing it of lIbsolutism, will revive a wholesome development of the State, and open up the isolated regions of the Commonwealth to commerce (lnd new life."
From the Columbus Enquirer-Sun. On several occasions the Enquirer-Sun has called attention to the fact
that there are some questions of internal policy which demand the attention of the State Legislature, the consideration of which cannot safely be delayed. The most important of them relate to our railroad corporations and their management. That there exists sufficient knowledge of the subject among our legislators to warrant the expectation of wise legislation and intelligent treatment, is shown by the fact that the Senate Railroad Oommittee has agreed to the bill which we publish this morning. The bill is a good one and places the railroads and the people upon a proper footing.
It allows the railroads the privi;ege of making their own schedules of just and reasonable rates, and guards against unjust discrimination. In other words, under its provisions the Railroad Commission stands as arbitrator between the public and the railroads, hearing the complaint of both sides, presenting nquests to either side, and both subject to a final decision by the courts of the country. It is impossible for the members of the Legislature to give this subject the deep study which its importancQ demands, hence they have referred it to a committee of intelligent gentlemen, who have takcn it into considcration, and their conelusions are embodied in thi. bill. This is a wise course to pursue,

127
and it is hoped that the wisdom of the Legislature will suggest the importance of this bill becoming a law.
There is one other feature that our legislators should not overlook. There is unquestionably at this time a disposition on the part of capitalists to take a more active interests in railroads and other enterprises in the Southern States. It is not encouraging for them to do so when confronted by a railroad law which denies them the freedom and control which arc accorded as a right to investors in mincs, mmlllfactures or general business. If it is true that some of the objectionable features of the law may be avoided, it may be consoling to those who already have their money invested, but it is not sufficient for those who have yet to put their money in Southern ventures. Let us no longer bind the railroads hand and foot and pluek from their pockets the mom,y to pay for the operation. Justice delayed is justice denied.
From the Waycross Headlight. It appcars to us, in a common sense view of the issues which have
caused SO much trouble, that there could not be drawn a document that more fairly settles the vexed question. The railroad companies of the State, if this bill becomes a law, are required to publish their rates of freight and transportation at least thirty days before they go into effect, and these rates are to be arranged in such a manner that the public cannot be deceived. The law allows the companies to make a scheme of rates which must be jnst and reasonable, but in case they are not thought to be just and fair, the amendment provides a very simple mode of appeal, which shall be to the Superior Court of the County where the . party bringing suit resides and the complainant has a right to call upon the Solicitor-General of such County. If the complaint is made against the railroads the Commission has a right to regulate the differences or arrange a schedule for the government of said road, but an appeal of either ttJ.e people or the railroad company is allowed as above. "This right of appeal is more in favor of the people, it appears, than the rail roads. "
From the Covington Enterprise. The Railway Oommission Bill as amended and agreed to by the Sen-
ate Railroad Committee on the 28th ult., appears to be placed in a shape that should insure its immediate passage. The bill is quite lengthy, covering every point which has heretofore been open to doubt or critICism on the part of the roads or the Commission.
Should the decision of the matter be unsatisfactory to either party, an appeal is allowed the dissatisfied party to the Superior Court, to be decided under the regulations affecting equity cases in said coufts. Appeal from the Superior Court, to the Supreme 00nrt will lie as in other cases, except that cases arising under this bill have preceden ce of all other cases.
From the Elijah Courier. What this commission might think were "just and reasonable rules,

128
and regulations" might not be so oonsidered by the people or legislature. Then a big railroad syndicate could afford to give a commission several thousand dollars to think a rule was just when it discriminated in their favor. We do not think it wise to place legisl!ltion under the temptation of money.
The many troubles that have arisen from actions of this commission have shown that a modification of its powers was absolutely necessary. The amendment that was offered by the committee is a considerable improvement on thc prcsent law; but the power given the commission in the first section of the bill, we think, is entirely too great. We do not think this commission should have so much legislativc authority. It is the business of our legislature to make our laws to govern us, but this commission is taking this power from the legislature. It h!ls a right to make laws the same !IS the legisl!lture, and they are as imperative and commanding and as important as the !lcts of the legislature.
This Commission should be more of an cquity Court hearing !lnd trying cases concerning the Railroads and people, it should see that the la w made by the Legislature is properly carried out j it should settle difficulties arising betwecn Railroads, a Railroad !lnd individuals, and a Railroad and community. The objection to this Commission now is the unjust discrimin!ltion in some c!lses. Well, there will always be such objections so long as the Legisl!ltive power remains in its hands. It would be best for the Commission, best for the Railroads and best for the people. It would be best for the Commission because.it would take the responsibility off of them and stop a great deal of unjust and harsh criticisms. It would be best for the Railroads, because it would allow thcm to regulate their own schcdnles, and whcn a new law made, they' would know more what to depend upon. It would be best for the people. because they would make their own laws, they would be responsible for it, and it would induce more capitalists to invest in Railroads in the State and build up more.
The Railroad Commission Bill.
:From the Fort Gaiues Tribune, Sept 7. The provision of the bill, we think. are a decided improvement over
thc old system. There was rather too much power formerly in the hands of the Commissioners.
From the Fort Valley Mirror and Advertiser. One of the most important measures before the Legislature is the
question of the power of the Railroad Commission, which are almost universally conccded to be unlimited and arbitrary. The matter has had considerable consideration by the Legislature, and the Senate Railroad Committee has reported favorably the bill which we print elsewhere in this issue. This bill is considered fair to both people !lnd railroads, and as far as we C[\I1 see is a most exemplary bill, and we hope will pass. It has been favorably commcnted on by the pl'Css of the State almost without exception.

129
From the Brunswick Advertiser and Appeal. The Senate Railroad Committee, after much labor and research, have
agreed upon a bill which, upon perusal, seems to meet the necessities of the case, both in behalf of the people and the railroads. All the former ask is to be protected from oppression by the monopolies, and the latter only beg that their very existence shall not be squeezed out of them, but that they be allowed a fair compensation for the use of the capital invested. This bill. it seems to us, will be fair and just to all parties concerned, and work no hardship to anyone. Its passage will doubt less give great satisfaction, both to the railroads and to the people.
From the West Point Press. In this issue we print the full text of the railroad bill now pending
before the Legislature of Georgia. It is' a comprehensive bill, and contemplates the correction of very glaring evils, and looks to the good of the people. If the Commission were but an a<ivisory board, simply as in Alabama and some other States, the bill might lose some of its force as a wise and efficient measure; but the power of the Georgia Commission being more enlarged, we are inclined to indorse the measure as both practicable and beneficial.
From the Calhoun County Courier. The bill is amendatory to the bill creating the Commission,and defining its
powers,in our opinion is fair and just to all concerned. If the bill becomes a law the railroads will get what they have been fighting for since the creation of the Commission, i. e. equality before the courts. The perpetration of unjust discrimination by the railroads will be as impossible under the provisions of this bill as under the bill which it is designed to amend.
From the Carroll County Times.
The important featu e of the proposed bill is the repeal of that part of the present law (Code 7191) which empowers the Commissioners to prescribe, in the first instance, the rates of carrying both freight and passenpers and charges for other service on all roads operating in the State, and the substitution of provisions more in accord with American ideas of the rights of property and private rights' in general. We think the bill a good one, and that it should be passed. Laws on this subject have hardly gone beyond the experimental stage, and will take time to perfect them so as to overcome all the difficulties in the way of their satisfactory, operation. The present bill is, in our judgment, a step in advance.
From the North Georgia Times, (Spring Place.)
The above is but a brief synoposis of the bill now pending in the legislature and which we hope will pass. The most important change in the present law, is the right of eitber party to appeal adjudication of the commissioners to a higher court, for as the law now is, the Commissioners have almost unlimited power. Also we think the mode of regn-
9

130
lating the rates of charges is better'than the present. Would be glad we had space to speak of the bill more extensively.
From the Toccoa News. The question of amending the law in reference to the Railroad Com-
mission has been considerably agitated. We are in favor of liberal legislation in reference to all business interests. We are in favor of such legislation as will encourage railroad enterprises, and we think the correct medium between the roads and the people would be a fair and reasonable profit on honest investment. The powers of the Commission at present appear to us to be too arbitrary. Our only objection to the Commission, as it now stands, is that its decisions are finalno appeals to a higher tribunal. This power could easily operate to the oppression of the roads or to the detriment of the people. We think there should be restrictions of some reviewing authority. August the 18th the Senate railroad committee agreed to a bill to alter and amend the J. ct creating the Commission. This bill is unquestionably pervaded by a spirit of fairness to the roads.
From the Griffin Sun. That some change is needed cannot be doubted by any unprejudiced,
thinking person who has considered the subject. The present law is arbitrary to the last degree; and, in a word, puts the management of the vast railroad property in the State at the mercy of the three Commissiohers. Such a policy is almost necessarily fatal to the prosperity of the roads now in existence, and to the building of new ones. Every reason of fairness and of sound business policy demand a change. The change proposed appears to us a good one. It is open to one objection-that of bringing about a great deal of litigation; but this is perhaps unavoidable in any plan that would provide for an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners. We hope the chadge in the law will be made.
From thef:Marion County Clipper. Why deny a railroad the right of appeal in the name of all that is
just and equitable?
From the Sylvania Telephone. Railroads,:in our jungment, have the right or should have it to char"e
8uch prices fo~freight and passenger carrying as will insure them a fair remuneration for the capital invested and the service performed.
From the Thomasville Times. The Commission in one of their late reports recommended that an ap-
peal be allowed by either ~de where they felt the decision was unjust or oppressive. The Senate bill now pending gives this right of appeal. It also allows the road to make their own schedule of rates; these, however, to be appealed from to an established tribunal, if any feel that the rates are unjust. There appears to be a very geueral feeling throughout the State in favor of modifying the law.

131
More Light on the ;Ra.ilroa.d Question.
From the Jackson Herald. The vexed question of the railroads and the people has given the
legislature no little trouble. The committee on railroads in the senate have amended the house bill and have agreed on one.
We have given this bill some thought, and we believe it presents a solution of the question. We hope it will be passed, and that this question will be withdrawn from the legislature for a while at least. The people have no desire to cripple the railroads; on the contrary, they are disposed to foster them as helps to build up and civilize the country. They will be willing to try this bill a while, and if it works well, all right; if not, they know they can repeal it or change it.
From the Conyers Weekly Farmer. Our Commission has created a most extreme and arbitrary one--the
taking away from the railroads all rights and placing all power in the Commission, being an act fearfully wrong and unjust. Weare not opposed to a Commission clothed with reasonable power to regulate all wrongs and set right abuses, but we are opposed to anything even bordering on complete dictatorship. It is against the spirit of our Constitution and the will and welfare of our people. It has already worked great injury to our railroad interest~, and stopped upon the very bordering lines of our State millions of dollars that w,ould have otherwise been invested here in railroads. The bilL of which our synopsis is short bu gives the main points, is a good one. We earnestly hope that the bill may become a law and the Oommission made a court of justice and equity, and not an institution with absolute power.
From the Albany News and Advertiser. This amendatory bill seems to us to be perfectly fair to all parties at
interest, as it puts them on a footing of equality before the law. Possibly, under its operations-if it should become the law-Albany would be able to compel a recognition of her right to the cheap rates to which she is entitled by reason of being a competitive railroad point. She has never been able to win this recognition from either the Railroads or the Commission under the law as at present constituted. If the Railroads should fail to give her the benefit of competitive rates in making their schedules, then an effort should be made to enforce such "just and reasonable rates" by successive appeals until the right is gained. The interests of Albany demand a change.
It seems utterly indefensible that any class of property in Georgia should be denied the right of appeal to the courts. The fear that either party would fail to get justice by such appeal is not really a showing against the right of appeal, but an attack on the rectitude of the courts. Such an attack is not justified by the records of the higher courts of this State.

132
The Railroad Commission---Light Thrown Upon the Railroads by the State Press.
From the Columbus Enquirer-Sun. If the Georgia Legislature would modify the Railroad Commission
law, we believe our city would have two new completed Railroads in less than eighteen months.
From the Quitman Free Press. We have carefully read the report of the sub-committee of the Senate
on the question of the modification of the present Railroad Commission law, and we have minutely examined the bill reported by the Senate committee to modify the law. We believe that under this proposed amendment more ample justice will be done the Railroads of Georgia, and that it will be sufficient protection to the people against unjust and unreasonable rates and discriminations. We ale earnest and warm supporters of a Commission, and we believe it about the only safeguard of the people's rights under the constitution, but we have never entertained the idea that the framersof this instrument ever intended that the Railroads should be absolutely managed,. so far as the fixing and making of rates is concerned, by any three men; btt that the intention of the Oonstitution was simply to prevent an outrageous tariff imposed by the Railroads on the people. The Commission can do this without fixing . i the rates in the first instance. Let the Railroads fix their own rates and let the Commission determine upon complaints made by the people as to the reason and justice of the rates fixed. Weare satisfied the thinking people throughout the country will agree with us. We are in favor of equal rights and justice for all. We want protection against all moneyed monopolies and corporations and we are also willing that they in turn should be protected in their rights. We have sufficient confidence in the intelligence of the present Georgia Legislature to believe that they will decide the matter fairly and justly.
From the Augusta Chronicle. In another column we publish a powerful and searching review of the
arbitrary, unconstitutional and devastating Railway Commission of Georgia. The members of this Commission are shown to have inter preted the law to suit themselves, and to have executed it mercilessly. We advise a careful perusal of the points made by our correspondent, which are on the line so long held by the Chronicle.
The Legislature of Georgia is not asked to abolish the Commission, but to keep it within bounds so that it shall not hurt the railways, their owners or the Commonwealth. It is simply asked that these corporations shall have the right to regulate rates, as provided in the bill now before the Senate.
We have simply this to say: If the Commission be not shorn of its arbitrary power, there will be no more railroads built in Georgia, and those already built will be ruined. When a man of affairs like Senator Brown sells out his stocks in these roads, and says no prudent person

133
would either hold securities in old roads or invest his money in new ones, it is time to call a halt upon the disturbing and desolating Commission. The people of this State have no desire to cripple the roads they now possess, and they are far from wishing railway development to cease in their borders. Firmly impressed with this idea, we do not hesitate to ask that the representatives of the people shall be just to the corporations as well as to their constituents.
From the Middle Georgia Times. We publish the bill in full in another column of the Times agreed to
to by the Senate railroad committee. It seems to us be a very equitable
bill, one that will protect the people against exorbitant charges, and at the same time give the railroads a living showing. Railroads as well as other corporations and people are certainly entitled to some compensation for their labor and capital above the actual expenses of the roads. They should be allowed to live and let live; the bill agreed upon will secure this end. We publish it in full that the people may know what it is.
From the Dublin Gazette. We call the attention of our readers this week to the bill amending
and repealing certain acts governing the Railroad Commissioners of this State as agreed to by the Senate railroad committee on August 28th. We have examined the provisions of the bill closely and critically, and think that it affords as near a complete remedy for the existing evils as any could hope for at this time, and will, no doubt, give satisfaction at present to all conflicting interests. It is eminently proper that there should be some check placed upon extortion and unjust discrimination by the roads against localities, but it is likewise proper that the enormous power now vested in the Commission should be greatly modified. The arbitrary power of this Commission has not only crippled the interest of our roads, but has obstructed the building of other roads which would have been of great benefit to our State in the development of its varied resources. The bill as agreed to by the Senate Committee meets all the requirements at present and should become a law at once.
From the Waynesboro True Citizen. Below we give the full text of the bill agreed to by the senate com-
mittee on the 28th of August. While railroads may be monopolies, and fit subjects for control by the legislature, we have recognized the arbitaary laws which have been in existence since 1879, and their more than enforcement by the railroad commissioners as an interference with personal rights. And while the present bill is still arbitrary in some of it~ provisions, it is so much more liberal and equitable that we feel satisfied to accept it in place of the old law-it at least grants all parties an opportunity to appeal to the courts, which is a right as sacred to the corporation, formed of citizens, as to the individual.

114
From the Athens Banner-Watchman.
The railroad commission bill comes up today and we are glad to know that there is a good chance of its passing both the house and senate. It will be a long stride ahead for Georgia.
The Railroad Commisaion---Expressions of Opinion from the Press All Over the State.
From the Clarksville Advertiser. We publish this week the bill that was agreed to by the railroad
committee of the Senate August 28th. Now, anyone acquainted with the recent newspaper discussions in
regard to the Railroad Commission, pro and con, will at once come to the conclusion that legislation on the subject was a necessity, and that immediate action on the part of the Legislature should be taken. As to whethAr the bill in question meets the exigencies of the case remains to be seen. We have published it entire, that our patrons may read and decide for themselves as to its merits. From the Elberton Gazette.
The following is the substance of the railroad bill agreed to by the Senate railroad committee, August 28th, 1885. This will give the railroads an equal right with all other property-owners in the State. It has certainly been a most arbitrary law to place in the hands of three men the control of the entire railroad property of the State, from whose decision there was no appeal. This law has done more to stop the wheels of progress and development in Georgia than all else, and we are proud to see that the Senate is taking a proper and equitable view of the subject. We hope the bill will be passed and agreed upon by the Senate committee. From the Gainesville Southron.
Much has been said for and against the Railroad Uommission since it was created by the Legislature in 1879. At the time of its passage the Southron was one of its strongest advocates, and has stood by the law ever since, only asking from time to time that its imperfections might be eliminated. and amendments made to it that seemed just and right to the people of the State, the railroad companies and all concerned We are still in favor of the Commission, and believe with the amend ments recently proposed by the Senate committee it will be well nigh perfect.
Senator Brown and other railroad men high in authority, as well as most of the best business men of the State, have spoken out in favor of this Senate committee bill, and we do not hesitate to say we expect the Legislature to pass it promptly, the Governor to approve it without hesitation and the people to say Amen I with nearly one accord.
We have examined the bill as it came from the committee very carefully, and must say that the care evidenced in preparing it is a credit to the wisdom and states~anship of the members of that very important committee.

131)
From the Cherokee Advance.
We received & copy of the bill to modify the powers of the Railroad CommiSlrion, as agreed to by the Senate's Railroad Committee a few days since.
At present there is much dissatisfaction over the State re!\,arding the absolute powers vested in the Railroad Commissioners in ,Georgia. This bill see~s to modify all the points over which so much discussion has been had as to meet all the objections. One of the greatest objections to the Commission as its powers stand at present is that no appeal is allowed from its decisions. The bill remedies all this, and provides "that shall either party be dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioners, or with any rule or regulation made by them in any case, such party shall have the right to carry the same by appeal to the Superior Court of the County where the coDlplaint originated.
It appears to us that this bill is a good one, and will so moderate the powers of the Commission as to satisfy all-the railroads and the people. It is likely to be passed, and we trust it may, believing that if it does pass great good will result from it.
From the Hamilton Journal. The bill agreed upon by the Senaw Railroad Committee restriCting
the power~ of the State Railroad Commission ought to become a law The object of the CommiMslon was to prevent unjust discriminations, and this can be done without vesting in, it power~ that might be used to crll~h railroad corporations By fixing an unremunerative rate the three Railroad COmmis....ioners might bankrupt any or all oi the railroads in the State. The three honorable gentlemen who now compose the Commission have acted hone_tly and wiady, greatly to th ad,.antage of the commonwealth and without material hurt to the railroads, but they will not always be in office and those who deal in railroads do Dot hesitate to buy Governors and Legis:aiors, and these make Railroad lJOmmissiolls.
If a Jay Gould should turn his attention to Georgia railroads stock in them might be depreciated until he had bought by e ruling of the Commission lowering freight and passenger rates, and might be afterwards advanced by raising these rates. It is best not to vest so much power in so small a body, and for this reason we would restrict the powers of the Commission.
From the Eatonton, Ga., Messenger. A great deal has been said recently about the Uommission. The,sen-
ate has at last agreed upon a bill which we publssh in full. The provision which allows the Railroads to make reasonable charges tor freight seems eminently just, for how can three men say what is remunerative rates for any corporation? N ow if the Railroads charge unjust and unreasonable rates the Commission is authorized to investigate the complaints when made, and reduce the rates. This to us seems fair and just.

1:56
From the Douglassville Weekly Star.
The Legislature has at last summoned sufficient manliness and courage to tackle the mighty Railroad Commission of Georgia, and the Senate Railroad Committee has agreed to a bill, Ii synopsis of' which we publish this week, and reported it to the Senate that strips the Commission of much of its arbitrary power, und in a measure gives the railroad corporations a showing to manage their own property; while, at the same time, it holds said corporations to just and equitable defilings with their patrons. It is said that corporfitions have no souls, 'md while this is true, we think the Legislature could go still further than they have in this bill, and grant broader privileges to the railroad companies without detriment tothe public good. There is no one thing that develops a country so fast as railroads being built through it, and we have been inviting Northern capital to our midst ever since the war. and while we have received a great deal, no doubt there would be as much more invested in railroads in this State had it not .beeE for the arbitrary power vested in our Commission, which prevented capitalists from controlling their own money when so invested. General Lawton, in speaking of this matter, very appropriately says:
The bill no'\\' pending in the Senate does not contain the full measure of justice to the railroads nor disp(1)se of all the wrongs under which they are suffering. But it does made changes which address themselves to a plain sense of justice and fair dealing. It virtually makes the Railroad Commissioners a wpervisory body. While it does not leave them full power to issue orders without previous notice of such intention, which can change the value of the railroad prop'erty by millions of dollars within thirty days, it leaves with the railroad officials power to initiate rates, and after they shall be announced the Commission can investigate them, hear all complaints and apply the proper remedy if one is needed. It also provides for appeals from any actions of the Commissioners by either the railroads or any portion of the people to be affected to the tribunals of the State which have been created to settle all differences which affect the liberty or property of any citizen.
After all, the great value of a properly constituted Railroad Commission consists in the moral power that it exercises and the publicity that it gives, through their actions and their reports, to any wrongs perpetrated by the Railroad companies.
The importance of the passage promptly of the bill now before the Senate cannot be over-estimated."
From the Dawson Journal. It cannot be expected that a matter of so much importance can be
pprfected without trial and experience, lind should experience, after trial, teach us that the present proposed modification did not meet the demands of the times or relieve the difficulties complained of, then an other amendment can be adopted and another trial had.
We are between Scylla and Charybdis on this perplexing question,and

137
while we are evading the rocks of the one we should be careful to avoid the whirlpool of the other. Justice ought to be done to the railroads, and this can only be done by !In amendment to the commIssion law. At the same time we ought to be careful to guard the rights of thepeople from unjust discriminations in freight and passenger tariffs by the railroads.
He who solves this question will be a benefactor to the state. No safe rule can be adopted except that which is based on experience. We can only gain experience by trial.
Therefore, we favor the adoption of the proposed amendments that the future, aided by our experience, may produce a system that will be just and equitable and give satisfaction to all interested.
The Railroad Commission---What the Newspapers All Over the State Think of the Situation.'
From the Henry County Weekly, September 13th. On our first pa!,e, this week we publish, in full, the Railroad Commis-
sion bill, as amended and agreed to by the Senate railroad committee, and commend a careful perusal by all interested in the matter, on either side. It has long been apparent that some change has been needed in the Commission laws, as much important improvement in the railroad interests has been kept from the State under its present system. Railroads, as well as individuals, do not fancy the idea of being dictated to in the management of their own affairs, and common justice but demands that they be accorded what is just and right under the laws of the State, which are supposed to be framed for the .protection of all dasses of enterprises as well as people. Some medium should be reached by which neither the roads nor the people shall be oppressed and, in our opinion, this bill as nearly approximates that end as possible. until actUftl operations may suggest something better.
From the Hartwell Sun. To the railroads is our country indebted to a very large extent for
her civilization and progress, and it is but common justice that they should be treated fairly. We think the Senate bill modifying the powers of the Commission, is just and equitable. The people's rights can be protected without doir.g injustice to corporations.
From the McDuffie Journal. It is Hlfficient at present to s' ate that the entire railroad interests of
the State, with all the property and lhe immense capital therein invested, are absolutely and uncomlitionally at the mercy of this Commission. By arbitrary rule the Commission can, practically, crush every railroad in Georgia, and for .mch rulin).( the law gives no redress. They are amenable to no tribunal under the sun, and their official acts, however unjust, cannot be avoided or annulled. It is no argument to say that the Commll'sioners are just ami honorable men, and will not abuse the powers cObf"rr"d upon them. It is enough to know that they possess these pow-

138
ers to convince all that such restraints and safeguards should be thrown round them as vrudence and justice may dictate. Railroad corporations are merely the representatives of vrivate individuals, and their property are certainly entitled to equal rlghtw and fnll protection under the law j but of theRe privileges they are arbitrarily depri"ed by the poweIs upon the Commission. This is not only groS:lly unjllilt, but is dangerous, and will eventually prove to be a ruinoW! grant of power.
Of all the measurew yet proposed, the bill agreed to by the Senate Railroad Committee August 28th is by rar the most practicable, reasonable and just.
The bill is carefully drawn and securee, as near as prli.cticable, equal justice to the railroads and the voople. We hope it will become a law. From the DeKalb News.
Railroad enterprise in Georgia has been weighed down for years past by the Commission, from whose decisions there was no appeal, and we think it but right and just, that the Railroads now be given at least an equal chance; the most valuable property to the State is that owned by the Railroads; and instead of oppressing Railroad companies, we should rather encourage them. While we would not entirely inhibit the Commission. we would limit its authority and moderate the present system, it is a wrong principle to boss and browbeat the Railroads with this Commission, and not allow them to inquire into the justice or injustice of the matter. We desire to see the Railroads in this State prosper, and we believe if this bill becomes a law they will prosper, and at the same time give the people as good and cheap accommodations as the Commission have ever given them.
So. for the sake of justice, the goddess we all lo"e, let this bill pass, and stop this continuous war on Railroads. This bill is founded on equity, and for this reason, if no other, should pass without a dissenting voice. We trust the day is fast breaking when Railroads can operate through Georgia, minus the embarrassment of the Commission.
From the Oglethorpe Echo, Lexington, Ga.
These facts lead us to say that the Railroad Cvmmission, as now empowered by law to act and ail it thereby does act, is tyrannical and unjust, lind if the injustice and tyranny is kept up in the name of the people it is a reproach to their known and common honesty; it is an outrage in the name of a class which, whenever they come to understand it, will crush it out of existence. If they have been silent so long they have been ignorant. They are just, virtuous and mighty when they know the right, and that they may always be depended on to find out, sooner 01' later. It need not be feared that they will suffer the roads to unjustly and despitefully use them, nor when they are honestly represented will they be less just to the roads. Oglethorpe has a vote in the Senate on the proposed amendment and two in the House when the bill reaches that branch of the Legislature, and those votes, when cast in conformity to the honest wish of the people, will be in behalf of justice and moderation to railroads as well as indi vid uals. They were of this mind

139
when Crawford, Lumpkin and Gilmer moulded their opinions, and their present convictions are the heritage of that training.
From the Summerville Gazette. The railroad bill, as agreed to by the Senate Committee, authorizes
the Commission to adopt such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unjust discrimination in the transportation of freight and passengers on railroads. It requires the railroad companies to publish their rates in some paper in each of the seven principal cities of the State, and to publish any change thirty days before it goes into effect. Anyone may appeal against these "rates to the Commission, and from the decision of the Commission, to the Superior Court. This is a vast improvement on the present law, which makes it the duty of the Commission to :fix the rates, and does not provide for any appeal. The State recognizes the right of each individual to manage his own business for himself, if he does not infringe on the rights of others; we cannot see the justice of treating corporations in any other way. The bill gives sufficient safeguards against injustice to any, and full remedy therefor.
The Railroad Oommission.
From the Reidsville Enterprise, We have an inherent and inalienable right-the right to petition the
Government, and to appeal to the courts, handed down to us by our forefathers, and the Legislators should hesitate long before forcing upon the people of this 8tate a system which destroys or impairs this right. It is well known among our people that to manage any business successfully, one must be enabled to reasonably calculate on certain income in order to meet the necessary expenses of his business. It makes no difference how small or how great the enterprise may be. Under the present laws governing the Railroad Commission, they are a legislative body in themselves, to make rules and regulations governing passenger and freight rates, and they are at the same time a court to try the Railroads for violating the rules which they have made; and the evidence that is introduced on the trial is the schedule of rates which has been made by them. It naturally follows that the Railroads are fonnd guilty, and under section 9 of the act, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousa.d dollars, for having thetemerity to disregard their rates, rules or rejlliations.
With tms amendment we see no reason why our railroad interest should longer lie dormant. for capitalists will readily see a safe investment for their money. and ere long our State will have competing lines all through her interior, which will effectually put an end to all high rates of transportation, the law of supply and demand taking hold of the public carrier as well as the State's commerce.
From the Rome Bulletin. Thursday and Friday mornings the "Bulletin" published interviews
with forty-six of Rome's leading business men and citizens, and out pf

140
the forty-six interviewed, four wanted the Railroad Commission abolished altogether, thirty are in favor of abridging the power of the Commission j two are indifferent on the subject, while ten wanted the law to remain as it is, and two of this number admitted that the law as it stood was unjust to the roads.
A Bulletin man interviewed thirty-two other of our business men, whose views will be published Sunday or Tuesday, together with others yet to be interviewed. Of the thirty-two on hand,. twenty-nine are in favor of amending the railroad law so as to abridge the absolute power of the Oommission, and three want the law to remain unchanged.
From the Athens Chronicle. The Constitution is doing some good work now for the Railroad Com-
mission. The people everywhere see very plainly that the absolute and arbitrary powers given the Commission are injuring, very materially, the railroad interests all over the State. If the Legislature does not modify these powers at its present session, the people will be very much disappointed, and will no doubt visit their disappointment in a very substantial way.
*" * .* '* '* *' '* * "* '* * '* ,.
The bill pending before the Legislature looking towards a modificatic'll of the absolute and arbitrary powers of the Oommission, seems to meet with popular favor. The railroads are perfectly willing to rest quietly with such a bill. The modification of this law, as the new bill sets it forth, allows the railroads in the first instance to fix their rates; if these charges are too exhorbitant or outrageous, it permits the aggrieved parties to appeal to the Oommission for redress. In other words, it makes the Commission an appellate tribunal, and not a court of original jurisdiction. While Railroads and parties interested cannot agree, it allows them to adjourn to the Courts for a settlement of the difficulties concerned. The law is manifestly a just and proper cC?nception to take of the subject. We do not believe in permitting the Railroads to oppress the people, but on the other hand our love tor fair play does not permit us to sit down quietly and witness the worst kind of oppression on the part of the people towards the Railroads. Railroads have rights as well as individuals. they are nothing more than an aggregate of individuals, and when you grind them and oppress them you oppress and injure widows and orphans. The future of our State is -inseparably connected with the Railroad j if we hope to see foreign capital seek our borders for investment, and desire to see a tide of immigration pour into our State from the teeming capitals of Europe, in the one case as in the other, we must look to the Railroads for this help and benefit.
From the Griffin News. The argument in favor of the Senate bill modifying the powers of
the Railroad Oommission have been well and exhaustively made and sustained by the almost unanimous. voice of the press of the State,

141
and must have been read and felt by the members. We can only assure them of the universal voice of the people of this community-and we ask them to verify it by personel inquiry-which is, in the popular parlance of those for whom we speak, that the railroads be allowed "a showing for their white alley," and thus the people be benefitted by a new road which is waiting to be built."
From the Monroe, (Ga.) Advertiser.
"The bill relating to the Railroad Commission, as amended by the Senate, we consider as just and reasonable. It repeals the most objectionable sections in the original bill and to some extent disrobes the Commission of the supreme power hitherto conferred on them, which is certainly a wise provision. 'l'he justice of a legal check against unjust discrimination in the transportation of freight. and passengers, upon the part of railroad corporations, certainly no one will dispute. This amended bill supplies the check. But to clothe a Commission with the authority to dictate the financial management of railroads which, though public carriers, are private property, is certainly a stretch of power. And to persist in the exercise of the same would work inevitable injury to the raIlroad interest, and to the development of the resources of the State. The supreme, arbitrary power hitherto held by the Commission, was evidently a barrier to the further development of the railroad interests in Georgia. Now, every reasonable man will admit that whatever militates against the development of the railroad interest in Georgia, will inure to a greater or less extent to the injury of the State. This being true, it would certainly be wise in our l\lgislators not only not to embarrass the development of this great interest, but to aid and encour age the same so far and so long as their labors in that direction, are consistent with constitutional and statute authority, and the interest of tb,e people. In removing the embarrassing and objectionable features of the original, this amended bill, wherein due regard is had to the rights of both railroads and people, certainly could but result beneficially to all parties at interest. Hence, should our legislators see fit to make it the law, governing the points at issue, they wonld thereby in some degree, remove that which has grown to be, to a greater or less extent, a barrier to railroad progress in Georgia."
From the Atlanta Constitution. It is useless to disguise the fact that there is a growing disposition
among the people to modify the law creating the commission. It was never the purpose of the people of this State to oppress the
railroads, and they will not tolerate it in the commission. The commission was instituted to prevent discrimination;, to see that
reasonable and just rates were made and carried out. The law was made harsh because it was necessary. For the same reason it was made arbitrary. But there is no reason why it should not now be modified, if it is seen to prevent the building of other roads, or is used to cripple those already built. The legislature has this matter under consideration, and we trust they will treat the subject as it deserves.

142
Fro~ the Sl\vl\nnab News. The Senate amendment in allowing the railroads to make their own
rates, and the Commissi~ners to decide C/l,ses only which may be brought before them, under rules of evidence made by the Legislature, removes this great objection. The amendment takes away legislatIve functions, and confers judicial powers, with the right to make rules and regulations like the Judv,es of the Superior and Supreme Courts, not inconsistent with ,the laws of the State and the United States.
This right of appeal is more in the interests of the people than the railroads. Our forefathers, when they landed upon the shores of the Atlantic, brought with them as an inalienable and inherent heritage, the right to petition the government Rnd to appeal to the courts.
Legislators should hesitate long before fastening upon the public policy of this Stste a system which impairs this right.
The Senate amendment restoring it, after its temporary partial suspension, by the act of October 14th, 1879, should receive the mOBt careful consideration from the Le~islature.
From the Telegraph and Messenger.
The Railroad Oommission has laid a semi-annual report upon the desks of the members of the Legislature. It is intended to counteract any attempt to modify the law under which the Commission at present acts. The report says:
Much dissatisfaction has been expressed by the Railroad Companies of the State in reference to the powers conferred upon the Commission by the act of 1879. An attempt will he made at the approaching session of the General Assembly, we learn, to have the law so amended as to make it more consistent with the views and wishes of the Railway corporations. In view of this, we deem it not improper to give expressions of our opinions upon this very important subject, through the medium of this report
While this is true, the Commission fails to tell the wh'ole truth. There are thousands of men in Georgia who are not in any way interested or connected with Railroad corporations, who think the present law should 00 modified. Tbey do not desire to destroy the Oommission, or to emasculate its powers, but to equalize its authority and action. The Commission makes a grave mistake when it rushes into print to defend its life and to display the unfair temper of a special pleader, and the arguments and suggestiom of the demagogue. The questiun involved is far above State politics, and should be met in the spirit of a chancellor disposed to deal out equity, rather than that of a court attempting to hold and defend its jurisdiction. The Commission is capable of doing a great good if it will exhibit a judicial temper, aud can conceive the idea that it is not a criminal arraigned at the bar, and being prosecuted by the Railroad corporations. A great change has come over the people of Georgia since the formation of the Commission, and a very large portion of them desire that the arbitrary powers granted to it shall be,

143

some extent, modified. They do not believe the Commission infallible, and in contests that have been made before the courts, the Legislature and the people, its temper has not always btlen exhibiled to advantage.

From the Valdosta Times. This seems fair and just. It certainly is democratic. The Times has
favored the Railroad Commission all along. but it may be that the law, as it is administered, is too arbitrary. If modified to meet the above recommendations, we can see no objection to it. It is feared that the Commission has materially checked the building of new roads in Georgia.

From the Savannah Times.

These recommendations of the committee, made after months of care-

ful study and research into the subject are in exact accord with the po

sition the Time., has taken from the first. If adopted they will se-

cure us a commission endowed with ample authority to protect the peo-

ple from extortion and oppression, while at the same time the railroads

will be given a fair chance to protect themselves against unjust deci-

sions. We' believe that they will commend themselves to the good

sense of every thinking man, and that the legislature will bestow upon

them its most thoughtful consideration. We believe also that if this re-

port is acted on favorably, even those who now the most bitterly op-

pose any change whatever in the law, under apprehension that it will

work disastrously to the people, will, in a short time, a!;ree that the

modification proposed is beneficial to the best interests of the entire

state. From the Conyers Solid South.



On our first page will be found the proposed amendment to the present Railroad bill. No fair minded man can object to this bill. It is a

crying shame that a Railroad Commission should possess unlimited pow-
er,-that there should be no appeal from their decision. It is a'bad

policy for any State to handcuff capital in such a way that it will seek

foreign investment. While we are opposed to Railroad monopolies, we

also oppose any Legislation that takes away all the privileges of the Rail-

roads. Have the Commission empowered to correct any extortion of

the road, but have its power limited.

From the Warrenton Clipper. The right of appeal from the Railroad Commission to the couts" is
but justice to this great branch of our State industries. Absolute and unconditional power ought never to be conferred on anyone, or set of men. From the Talbotton New Era.
Elsewhere in this issue we print in full the bill agreed to by the Senate committee, amending the Georgia Railroad Commission law. This bill now under discussion by the Senate of Georgia, recognizes the rights of the railroad corporations. It sees in our railroad property owned by every class of our citizens; and the fact that upon these

144
great interests depend many hundreds and thousands of men. women and children, citizens of Georgia, for their daily bread. Is is a bill that deals justly and fairly by the railroads-at the same time forbidding extortion and unfair dealings upon their part with the patronage of the public, upon whom the necessity of their traffic is laid.
We do not think the people or the railroads can object to this bill Under the law, as it stands, the Railroad Commission is built to look on all railroads as enemies to the people, and as great, grasping corporations' born only to crush and ruin, and the power of the Commissioners to mould and sway these great monsters (?) is unlimited. This is nat right, and the press and people are none too early in finding it out, and unless this power is modified, the prosperity and progress of the State is in danger. The object is met in the present bill, and we confidently look for its passage.
From the Wrightsville Recorder. The Railroad Commission bill as it passed the Senate and went to the
House is what justice to the Railroads demands. We do not advocate anything that would allow the Railroads to extortion on the public but we do favor simple justice to Railroads as much as to individuals, and as the bill pa.ssed the Senate it is nothing more or less than justice to all parties and we most heartily endorse the action of the Senate in this matter.
From the Jackson Daily News. To sum up the whole question, we CBn see no valid objection to the
bill peading before the H.use becoming a law. It prevents unjust discriminations against different railroad towns within the limits of the State, by the pooling system, and compels railroads to charge uniform rates for the actual distance carried. At least, there is no great danger to the interests of the people by its operation for two years, and if it should be ascertained that the railroads are disposed to oppress the people, and the present bill does not give the necessary relief, the next Legislature can so alter the law as to insure justice to both the people and the railroads.

THE COMMISSION.

THE LAW AND ITS WORK UNDER DISOUSSION.

An Able and Interesting Letter from Hon. Wm. P. Clyde, Showing How the Railroad Oommission Law Has Retarded Progress in Georgia---Comparisons with Other States.

Hcm. Robert FalUgant, Atlanta, Gem{fia-

NEW YORK, December 2, 1884.

DEAR SIR: In common wHh many other persons who have believed in the very groat possibllltles of the new South, or the old South under new L,{Jliditions
and who have backed their belief by large investments in Southern railways, i
have been a large loser, as well as those interested with me in my investmerits and interests in Georgia through the extraordinary, and I believe unjust, operation of the Railroad Commission laws of that State, and have therefore noticed with much interest the fact that you have introduced a bill modifying its injurious features.
I have also read with close attention the comments of Governor McDaniel in his message to the present Legislature upon this law. He S>iyS "It is not the purpose of the statute to assume the management of the railroads or in any wIse to infiiet injury upon them. Rightly administered the important powers vested in the Commission should result in benefit to the rallroads and to the public. There can be no real conflict of interests. The public is entitled to prompt and efficient railway service for the accommodation of travel and tratfic, for which the railroads are entitled to sutfieient compensation to eover opcrnting expcnsc~, the eost of maintenance, improvelncnt and renewal of the property, and ill Iv1(lition ft fnir average return for the value of the investment and the risk incurred."
Thfs is the clearest, most condensed and fairest statement of the exact position which the public and the railroads should occupy towards criCh other, that I have ever read, and in it I believe that the Governor but voices the honest sentiment of the thoughtful people of Georgia, who, whlle guarding their own rights, are willing to recognize the just righ ts of those who come to or risk their capital in Georgia. If the just principles announced by the Governor were carried out by the railroad law there would be no ground left for complaint by eithcr the people or the rallroads. Governor McDaniel recognizes, what all men who are not communists must recognize, that all property stands in the same category and is entitled to the same rights and protection, a principle which the present railroad law and Commission have en tirely ignored so far as it applies to railroads.
That the Commissioners, after five years operatiolJ, should have found it neccs sary to rCeOlTInH:md It nlodHicatioll of the law, giving the railroads right to notice of their (the Commissioners) actions and the right to appeal from their decisions is sutficient evidence that hitherto the rallroads have not, in the eyes of the law or
10

146
the Commissioners, possessed rights wbich should be common to all persons and property, but have rather been sUbject to the instantaneous and autocratic action of the Commiesion withou t the right of appeal, and it is therefore not surprising under the cireumstances that the railroads' should have suffered, as they have, inealeulable injury as I shall demonstrate.
While all will agree with Governor MeDaniel, who wisely says it is uot the purpose of the statute to assume the management of the milroads, it is nevertheless true that the Railron,fl (~orrl1nissioners in attenlptillg to adrninister this law ha.ve taken out of the hands of their owners the entire control anu management of their earning power which is by far the Inost inlportant, responsible, intrieate and diffieult departIncnt of their management, and is l1101'eove1' the branch of lllallagement upon which the valne of the roads depends. They not only have assumed this, but have attempted to so regulate the rates and revenues of the roads as to also regulate the development of every other industrial enterprise in the State, as is shown by the eireulars and offieial reports. To state that they have faileu in their unuertaking is simply to state that they "re not endowed with superhuman abilities. :FrolH the very rnagnitnde of thi,;; undertaking sne'Jess was iInpossible. I make thi~ statcInellt to avoid any :.;eeming reflection upon the Commissioners personally in th-is eommuuieatioll. Their efforts have resulted in a state of confusion whleh if continued thrcatens every railroad in the State with bankruptcy, and I claim that notwithstanding the Commi~sioners aSRcrtioDS and laying all idea of jnstiee and equity aside, there has been and eUll be from snch causes no equivalent fl,dvantages gained by any other interest in the State.
That the Commissioners have themselves become involved in this confusion will be I think dearly shown by an analysis of the notes and explanations of their tenth semi-annual report dated October 15th, 1884.
The)' state it has been ""nmed that the policy of the State in establishing a Railroad Commission for the purpose of regulating railroad traffic within the State has been detrimental to the interests of the milroads. In response to this assumption we desire to call your Excellency's attention to the following facts shOWing the same to be without any foundation:
"First. The records 01 this office show that for the five yearslprevious to the establishment of the Commission in 1879, there were built within this State less than one hundred miles of railroads, and that during the five years since the establishment of the Railroad Commission, more than six hundred miles of railroads have been constl'l1cted within the limits 01 the State." The Commissioners have unfortunately for their fltirness chosen to take the five years immediately following the panic of 1873, during'which railroad building in the country was practically dead, as is shown by the fact \hat Georgia in this period increased her mileage but seven per eent, "ud the whole Southern Slites taken together but eight per cent., aud the entire country increased its mileage but sixteen and three-tenths per cent. and they compare this with the fivc yeltrs includl~ and follOWing 1879, known as the period of the great railroad "boom" during which Georgia increased her mileage 214-10 per eent. (214-10), the entire Southern States increased theirs 34 4-10 pel' cent., and the entire conntry increased its mileage 407-10 per cent.
Allowing the Commissioners the full benefit which they seem to claim of what would be otherwise fairly attributable to the "boom," the above figures show that during the period Irom1874 to 1879, when Georgilt had no Railroad Commission, the increase of her railroads was within one per cent. of the average rate of increase for the entire Southern Stat8s, while for the period of five years from 1879 to and including 1883, when Georgia had a railroad commission law, her railroads increased but 21 4-10 per cent., while the rate of increasc for the other Southern States taken together was 34 4-10 per cont., thus showing that during this period and under this law the rate of increase in railroads in Georgia was bnt a littlc over half of the rate of increase in all the Southern States. While the comparison when made between Georgia and all the Southern States is sufficiently nnfavorable for Georgia, It becomes much worse when made with States which possess no advantage over Georgia except that of being free from such a law. For instance, during the period from 1879 to 1883, railroads in Geor

147
gia incroo.sed but 214-10 per l'ent., while they increased in Virginia in thc same period 55 per cent., in North Carolina 26 3-10 per e'ent., in Florida 137 per ccnt., in Mississippi 43 5-10 per ccnt., in Louisiana 158 3-10 per cent. I have excluded Texas and the States west of the Mississippi rIver from all of the above figures for the rcason that their conditions might be said to be different, and have cOJ!lfined the comparIson to Southern States east of the Mississippi except that I have included Louisiana. The Commissioners further cite, as a fact, that their aetion has not deterred foreign and resident capitalists from purchasing the Macon and Brunswick, the Bruns_ wick and Western, the majority of the stock of the Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, nor from taking one-half of thc lellse of the Georgia Rllilroad for II period of ninetv-nine years at a rate which paid fourtecn per cent. on the capital stock of said ruad. They do not state, however, that everyone of these purchases was made at a time when capital was seeking railroad investments wherever they promised reasonable development in the country, and long before the worst features of the Railroad Commission law of Georgia, were developed or understood. They also omitted to state that the purchase of the Macon and Brunswick Railroad by the owners of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad and its consolidation therewith and completion to Atlanta and Rome, through the best portion of the State of Georgia, has almost bankrupted the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia road, whose first consolidated mortgage bonds although issued at only $20,000 per mile, are selling at fifty. cents on the dollar in the market, notwithstanding that every other piece of railroad owned by the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia company is showing an earning capacity much above the interest on its bonds. They lurther fail to state that the Brunswick and Western road, although purchased by one of the strongest and most prominent syndicates of Northern and European capitalists with a view to its extension west, has been abandoned by them and sold again at a large sacrifice to a competing line simply and solely because of the fact that they fonnd it impracticable, after the effects of the Georgia Railroad Commission law had become understood, to negotiate the sale of any securities upon railroad property within that State.
Neither have they explained that the purchase of the majority of the stock of the Western and Atlantic railroad company and of one-half lease of the Georgia railroad company by the Louisville and Nashville company was made also in igno. ranee of the undeveloped eil'ects of this law, and that the Louisville and Nashville railroad company have since been most anxiously seeking some one with confidence in Georgia railroad property under this law to take this purchase and lease off their hands, and that every year of the operation of the Georgia road under this lease has shown a serious loss.
It is true, as the Railroad Commission state, that the present railroad system shows the State to be well provided with trunk lines, and it is a matter of congratulation to know that out of 137 counties in the State, there are only 32 which are not traversed by the railroads, and many of these arc of easy access of railroad stations. The Commissioners, in fairness, shonld have added that this liberal supply of railroads grew up under the healthy law of supply and demand and its resulting competition, brought about by the prosperity of the Georgia Central and other old railroads of the State when there was no Railroad Commission law, and that as a consequence there is not now an old road in the Slate which is not to a greater or less degree paralleled by a competing road, and that nearly all parts of the State have thus, under natural laws of competition, secured permanent protection from all danger of extortionate rates.
In answer to the claims of the Commissioners that the policy of the State and the action of the Commission have not tended to the deprcciation of her railroads it is only necessary to cite the c'''e of the Georgia Ccntral railroad owning and controlling about onc-half of the railroad milcage of the State. This great corporation, for many years before the war and confinuously since the war, has earned and generally paid dividends ranging from six to ten per cent. upon its capital stock, besides placing a libcral surplus in betterment and equipment of their property, until it began to feel the eflects of the present Railroad Commission law,

148
!'nee which, time, notwithstanding its previous high physiool and financial condition, its economical management by officials equal in ability to any in Georgia, its earning powcr has becn reduced until, under the operation of this law, as shown by the following extract from official report for tbe year ending August 31, 1884, it now barely pa)'s its fixed Charges and is only able to continue its reduced dividends tbrough its income from property formerly accumulated and invested outside of thc State, and beyond the unfortunate infiuence of this Commission law. In tbis report to the stockholders President Raoul states as follows: "By reference to the proceeding table of' fixed charges it will be seen that the earnings of your road alld its leased lines in Georgia, ineluding those from bank and investments, yield only a surplus of ($88,610.66) after paying rental .lIld other fixe<l charges cquivalent to a divio.end n.pou its capital stock of 118-100 per cent. (118-100).
I will further cite the case of the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line, next to the GfOrgia Central, the most important Railroad in the State. This road, completed eleven years ago at a cost of over $50,000 per nIUe, besides developing a most valuable portion of the State, thus adding millions of dollars to her capital and taxable value, constitutes the short and direct route between Atlanta and Washington. Its building bankrupted its original projectors; it has been foreclosed and recapitalized upon a basis of less than one half of its original cost, and on this reduced basis was leased in 1881. The operation of the Georgia Railroad Commission law as developed and applied to this road, has cost the lessees a large annualioss, although the rental paid for the road is less' than the legal rate of interest in the State of Georgia npon a capital and bonded debt representing less than one-half of the original cost of the road, or what it could be duplicated and cquipped for to-day.
The COlumissioners again clHim "that the aSf:;urnncc of just and reasonable rates of transportation guarantecd to the citizens by the law has inspired theirconfideneel as manifested in all sections of the State by an increased impetus given to ai, branches of luauufactnrers.' , This us~urance on the part of the COlnmissioners is not sustained by a cOluparison of the development of the Sonth's most prolllising branch of manufactures, to-wit; the manufacture of cotton in Georgia with it:-:; de~ v.elopment in the States imlnecliately surrounding and competing with Georgia ill this important industry. In 1880 Georgia had 200,U'i,j spindles and ,j, il3100m8; in 1883300,000 spindles and 6,000 looms, showing '111 incrcase of 4\) per cen t. in spindles ,LIld 27 3-10 per cent in looms. The average increase in Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina in the same ycttrs was in spindle~ 70 2-10 per cent, and in looms ~7 per cent.
The Railroad Commissioners fnrther state "it can be justly claimed that a fair aild impart!>ll review of the work of the Commission in carr~-ing out the pnrposes of the lnw by a reduction nnd equalization of the rates whkh were in force hy the RnilrO<.ltl l'()lnpanies at the tilHe of its pllRR:lhllC will ~how a ~aving to the pt\oph of (Tcnrgi.L lUllllll1.Ily of n ~1111l ('Inial to the fulllLlllonnt of t.heir <\.IlIlWl.1 tHXt'~." In the efl'ort to llnOPl'stalld tlli~ i-1tl1t,(~nl('lltl I h:lve illq \lin'l] :uHl1incl tlmt tlw taxt'~ feJerrcd to lllllount to :;r:);-ll,~'.2~.S1. I [ail entirely to 1111(1 any log-if'HI rPlatioll between this the amount of the State's annual tax levy and the amount which an impartial Railroad Commission should, nnder the law, have taken annually from the earnings of the Railroads within the State, through such a connection, c1carly seems to h,we existed in the minds of the two Commissioners who have signed this report.
The Commissioners further state that the healthy financial conditions of the Railroads do not indicate that they have been injured thereby. I think the cases cited of the Gorgia Central Railroad, the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line, the experience of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad with thcir fOllr hundred miles in the State, the recent abandonment and sale at a sacrifice of the Brunswick and Western Railroad, furnish a suflieient answer that the views of the Commission as to what constitntes a healthy [maneial condition differ radically from the views upon thiH l)()illt of the nnfortunate stoekholders in these properties. It has been heretofore shown that the prosperity of the Georgia Centrai and the older roads in the State lead to the Imi!,1!ng- of roads to compete with them for the Imsin"s:; of th~ b'ate, and this, uIH~8r the law of healthy competition, gave to tlw State the system

149
of roads, upon whieh the Commissioners say she is to be congratulated, and iKe experience of every other State in the Union has shown that this law provides a healthier and safer guarantee ngainst the continuallee of extortionate ratee than a.ny which their Legislatures hnve been able to devise. In fact, the rigorous application of thc fcatures which have made the Georgia Rnilroad Commission law notorious throughout the land have been abandoned whcrever tricd in any State in the Union. South Carolina, two years ago, passed a law similar to the Gcorgialaw, and the same I,egislature which enacted it, when confronted with the fact that it invaded a sacred right of property and practieally confiscated it when it placed its entire rate making power in the hands of a corpomtion responsible to no one, and further, that under its operation the solvency of allY and all roads in the State rested entirely upon the arbitrary impulse of her Commissioners, repealed tl1i5 feature of the law and returned to the roads what they dcemed their inalienable rightfl, to~wit; the p<J\ver to llame their own rates, leaving the Commissioners to supervise them and the operation of the roads under modified laws. In no other Southern State has there existed any such rigorous law as that of the Railroad law of Georgia, and wherever there has been any approach to it, either the Courts orthe people have either modified or repealed it, ulltil to-day Georgia stands alone in the maintenance of any such radical legislation. The owners of all othcr species of corporate properties in other states have become alive to and alarmed at the dangers inherent in this class of legislation to them as well as to the owners of rail-
roads, and the owners of other than railroad property in Georgia cannot afford to
ignore this consideration. Thc railroads in Georgia, other than the East Tennessee Virgini" and Georgia,have an average bonded debt of but $12,212 per mile and an average capital stock of but $H,326 per mile, making together an aggregate of bu\ $26588 per mile. The roads of the state could not be duplicated aud equipped for a snm at all approaehing this amount. There never WllS a time when all these roads carned intercst on their bonds llnd dividends on their stocks. eonsequently the people of the state hl1've never paid legal iu terest on the ellpital invested in this business for their accolumodation andeonvenienec. It would, therefore, seem but reasonable that nntil the owners of this property arc pI'.id leg1l1 interest upon its very low capitalizlttion the owners of these roads necd protection from the people against the use of their property without remuneration for its use much more than the people have yet needed protection from the rOllds.
A comparison of this low capitalizlltion with.the capitalization of roads in other States will make the justice of this claim still more apparent. The roads of Tennessee are capitalized at an llverage of $49,417 per mile; the rOllds of Massachusetts at an average of ~&'l,126 per mile; the trunk lines leading from the East to Chieago llre capitali7.ed at an avemge of $142,311 per mile, the Gmnger roads lellding West from Chicago are cllpitlllized at an average of $41,357 per mile, and with the e;x:ception of the roads in Tennessee, all these roads pay interest upon their bonds and large dividends upon their capit1l1 stock. It will be seen, therefore, thllt if every road in Georgia were allpwed to earn a dividend before being interfered with by the CommiSSioners, the people of Georgia would be pllying for their trausportation upon a capital of less than one-third of the average capital upon which New England roads, the truuk lines and the granger roads of the West are and for years hllve been earning dividends.
The Railroad Commissioners, in the report above referred to, stllte that "the present railrolld system shows the State to be well provided with trunk lines, and it is a matter of eongmtulation to know that out of 137 counties in the State there arc only thirty-two which are not traversed by railrollds, and that many of these are of easy access to railrolld stlttions." They also say in the same report, "in couclll,ion we wish to express our appreciation of the promptness with which the railroad companies have furnished this office with reports llnd other informa,iion when cll11ed npon, and for the carrying into effect the llction of the Commissi0n."
The Railroad Commissioners thus officill11y assert llnd acknowledge that the rllilroad service of the Stllte is ample and sufficient for the accommodation of tmvcl and tmffic, llIHl thllt the railroads have obediently carried into effect; the law and orders of the Commission, despite the terrible cost to their owners. The

150
railroads of the State are thus shown to have fultUled what Governor MeDaniel states is their obligation and duty to the people. Governor McDaniel further says that for such service "the railroads are cntitled to sufficient compensation to COver operating expenses, cost of maintenance, improvelnents and renewal of property, and in addition a fair avemge return for the value of the investment and the risk incurred ;" and in this assertion I think all just men must agree with him. And here is precisely the point at which the great injustice of the operation of the present railroad lllw becomcs most apparent. Not a single railroad in the State is to-day receiving, nor has one received since the present Railroad Commis sian took from the owncr~ the regulation of the revenne and the earning pO-weI' of the railroad, "n, fair average retnrn for the vnlue of the investment and the riRk incurred.' ,
The Railroad Commission came into operation at a time when the r,tilr"ads 0
the State and country were doing the largest business ever done in their history, and this prosperous business continned from 1879 to 1881 and 1882, enabling the roads to make large earnings, notwithstanding the more moderate reduction in rates which the Commissioners had up to that time enforced. These reductions. however, awl the operations of the Commission law, serve to prcvcIll the accumulation of such a surplns in those prosperouS years as was accumulated in every other prudently managed business, aud which was needed to carry the roads in good condition safely through the succeeding years of depression. Not only did the operation of the railroad law thus imp'tir the natural and legitimate strength of the railroads, but by enforcing further reduction of rates during the time when the roads were suffering from competition and from a great diminntion in the volnme 01 business from the bad times and iailure of crops, they have brought the rOltds to the condition where not a single railroad in this State is mnch more than paying interest upon its bonded debt, leaving the sfockholders, so far as they have relied upon the earnings of their roads from Georgia business, in danger of no return whatever far the value of their investment and the risk incurred.
Not only is this the case, but to-day there arc important roads in the State which are not earning the interest on their bonds. When it is considered that the bonded debt of the chief road in the State, except the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia, avera~e bu t.$12,212 per mile; or less than one-third of their average cost it will be seen that the roads are far from receiving, under the operation of this law, what Governor McDaniel states: and all just men will agree with him they are fairly and equitably entitled to. In the lace of this situation the Commissioners declare "that the healthy financial conditions of the roads do not indicate that they have been injured and point with satisfaction to the fact that the Commission has taken each year from these roads "in carrying out the purpose of the law by a reduction and equalization of rates annually, a sum equal to the full amount 01 the State's annual taxes," to-wit: $952,222.81.
If this is anything short of confiscation under color of an unjust law of the interest of the stockholders I am uuable to perceive it. To my mind one of the worst and most dan~erousfeatures of this case is that like all communistic legislation. it is so su~ar-eoated by a seeming justice: and the respectability in the case of the agents employed as to dis~uise its real character, and effeet and secure the support of many honest people who have not carefully examined it. I am sure that among the risks contemplated when the large investments were made by the outside capitalist referred to in the Commission's report in the railroads of Georgia was not that of good faith and fair dealing of her people and Legislators, and I ask if the mischievous effects of this law can be permitted to eon tinue in operation in the light of the facts heretofore given, without involving this good faith at. least to such an extent as to prevent hereafter any other outside capital from taking such a risk.
This law turns the management and control of the entire earning power of over one hundred millions of property to three Commissioners, who are to each give their time for twenty-two hundred dollars per year. They are expected and t ley

151

have undertaken lor this sum to manage many time, more than the combined capital of all the banks and manufacturing companies in the State. Their reports show that reduction of r0vcnne without refercncc to conscqucnccs or cost 0;[ worth of transportation is thcir interpretation 01 successful management. In theil' rcport they boast of taking nearly one million dollars ann nally from the railroads. Conld the farming, the banking and the manufaetnring interests of the State stand this? Comparisons shown herein prove that all Georgialintercstsare beginning to share with the railroads the evil effeets of thi" law:

Yours respectfully,

WILLIAM P. CLYDR,

STATEMENT OF PROJECTED RAILROADS CHARTERED IN GEORGIA, SHOWING ESTIMATED ~IlLEAGE AND COST IN EACH COUNTY.

N A:ME OF ROAD.

I

FROM

,

TO

Iui:

--< .

I :~ COrNTIES THROUGH

[

~5

COST TN

r4

'" '" "--<

~

~'"' TOTAT, OOBT.I --<

WHICH IT J-tt1NS.

'"' ,..'"' 00u0 EACH COUNTY

;--.<;

i!

0

"''""

---

Athens & Columbus, ............ .... IColumbus, ............ .... IAthens, .... .. ...... .. IMus""gee, .................. 12 HarrIS, ........................ 1[}

Talbot, ........................ 18

~ilks,?,n:.::::::::::::::::::::::::

10 20

Spalding ..................... 10

Henry ........................ 13

Newton ....................... 18

Walton ....................... 18

Oconee ........................ G

Clark .......................... 6

Augusta & Chattanooga Air-L'e,IAugusta, ..................... IChattanooga, Tenn...... \Richmond .................. 9 Columbia .................... 22

Lincoln ....................... 10

Wilkes.......................... 21

Oglethorpe .................. 18

Madison ..................... 18

Jackson ....................... 16

Hall .............................
Da\VSoll .......................
Gilmer ........................

n'27

Murray ....................... 15

Catoo.a ....................... 12

Whitfield .................... 10

An~usta, Elberton & Chicago, ... IAugusta, .....................jChicago, Ill., .......... .... ICRoicluhmmboinad,.,....................................

10 20

Lincoln ..................... 27

Elbert .......................... 16

Ha5ersham ................. 18

Rabun ........................ 16

$180,000

225,000

270,000

15,000

300,000

1iiO,000

l~ii.OOO
227700,,0000001 90,000

.....

I

01
t-:)

90,000 1-16

$2, 190,()()()

135,0001

313500'.0000001 315;000 270,OQO 270,000 240.000 405.000
270,0001 405,000 225,000 180,000 150.000 1 150,000 300,000 405,000 240,000 270,000 240,0001

I
2231
1071

INO R.R
iNOR.R. INOR.R. No RR. 3,345,000
1,605,000

Brunswick & Western............... IAlbany,

IColumbus .... .. ILDeoeughert)

....

5 U

Terrell

.D

Webster

.W

Stewart

. ill

Chat t a h oochee

.. ffi

Muscogee

.8

Camil'la & Cuthbert,

ICamilla, ..

ICuthbert

I'BMaiktcehrell





1
..

ill
U

Calhoun

. lli

Chattanooga, ('JOlumbus & Fla IColumbus,

Randolph IFla. Line via Bainbr'gejMD~Ilcleartur

\U

....

~
U

Early

.. M

Calhoun

1 ill

~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::

~ ~

Chattahoochee

.. ill

Muscogee

.7

Covington & Macon

.. ICOvington,

IMacon

I~N~"elew~rt:o::n:::..:::::::.:.:::::::::::: 1

8
~
W

Bibb

.5

Darien

jDarien,

IJohnston Sta

jMLicbIenrttoysh

.1

ill
U

Eastman & savannah

Eastman,

Savannah

TDeoldfgaier

..

D D

Montgomery

.. lli

TBarytuaanll ..





1
..

~
W

Chatnam

. ill

Gainesville & Dlthlonega

IGainesville

1Dahlonega,

1LHuamll pkin

..

D 7

Georgia & Florida Midland Georgia Midland

Valdosta Atlanta

Madison. Fla Columbus

Lowudes CFuamltopnbell

.. ..

ffi 9
ill

~~fv~t~::::::::::::::..:::::::::

U
II

Meriwether

.. W

Harris

.. W

Musco/:ee

. ill

Macon & Florida

IMacon

.... IFlorida Line

I~i~~~ton::::::::::::::::::::::

M
~

Dooley

.. M

75.000 180,000
2'25,000 300.000 150,000
~,OOO
120.0001 86 150,000 180,000 270,000
180.0001 52 360.000 180.000 210,000 225,000 315,000
330.000 150,000 105.0001 125
120.000 405,000
300.000
75,0001 60 225.000 180,000 27
225.000 225,000 270,000
675,000 300,000
225.0001 128 225,000 105.0001 ~ 240;000 16
135,000 150.000 180,000 165,000
435.000 300.000 150.0001 101 210,000 405,000
540.000

1.290, NoR.R.
780.0001
NoR.R.
~
Ot C.:l
1,920, 330.000
~O.OOO
INOR.R. 1.515.000
NoR.R.

Marietta & North Georgia, Millen, Jesnp & Florida,
Monticello Short Line, Newnan & Franklin, Rome & Carrollton,
'Thomasville & Tallahassee 'Tybee, Wrightsville & DUblin,

Irwin

1 20

BWeorrrtile).n..1

3 9

Colquitt

.. 21

1

I

Brooks
IGilmer

. 28 . 10

Fannin

.. 20

Millen,

Hart's Road, Fla., IEmanuel

. 12

Bullock

.. 25

Tatnall

.. 42

Liberty

. 12

Wayne

. 26

Camden

. 32

IQuitman, .. .. .. IMOntiCellO, Fla.,

IBrooks

. 15

Newnan,

Franklin ..,

Coweta

.. 11

I

Heard

19

Chattanooga, Tenn ,I,aGrange,

,6~~o~i":::.:..::::::::.:::::::::

12 18

Haralson

.. 19

Polk

.. 14

Floyd

1 14

Chattooga

. 18

Walker

.. 21

Dade

..

9

Heard

, 22

Thomasville,

Tallahassee, Fla

Thomas

. 16

lsavannah,

ITybee Island, .. IChatham

. 20

Wrightsville,

Hawkinsville

Johnson

.8

Laurens

.. 30

Pulaski

. 12

1

3~g:gggi

NoR.R.

133155,,0000001

NoRR

420,000 158 150,000i 300,00o, 30

2'370'0001 N o R R 450,000

180,000

No RR

375,000 630,000

NoRR NoRR

180,000

390,000

480,00' 149 225,000 15

2'223255,,000000INO RR

165,000 135,000,1 20

300,000 No RR

!18O,000

270,000

285,000

210,000

210,000

270,000

315,000

135,000

330,000 240,000

14476[

No RR NoR.R.

I-' Ot ~

2,205,000INo RR 240,000

300,000 20

300,000

120,000

450,000
180_,000 ~!

750.000

17261 $25,890,000

LIST OF OOUNTIES THROUGH WHICH PROJEOTED RAILROADS WILL PASS, WITH THE ESTIMATED AMOUNTS TO BE SPENT IN EAOH COUNTY.

COUNTRY THROUGH WHICH IT RUNS.

FROM

TO

NAME OF ROAD.

t~~Z;:8z.>.

COST IN.. EACH COUNTY

~~ I I ~~~~?o~"=

TOTAILN COST EACH COUNTY

<0~0 :~;l

~ :;l

"~r.~<

_

Baker

: Camilla, Ga.,

ICuthbert, Ga.,

Camilla & Cuthbert,

1

12

Berrien

Macon, Ga., .. :

Florida Line,

Macon & Florida

.3

Bibb

Macon, Ga.,

Florida Line,

Macon & Florida

.. 14

Bibb

Covington, Ga.,

Macon, Ga.,

Covington & Macon,

15

Brooks

Quitman, Ga.,

Monticello, Fla.,

Monticello Short Line,

' 15

Brooks

Macon, Ga.,

Florida Line,

Macon & Florida,

.. 28

Bryan

Eastman, Ga.,

Savannah, Ga.,

Eastman & Savannah,

. 20

Bullock Calhoun

Millen, Ga., Camilla, U".,

Hart's Roads, Fla., Cuthbert, Ga.,

Millen, Jesup & Florida, Camilla & Cuthbert,

.. 25 . 18

Calhoun

Columbus, Ga.,

Fla. Line via Bainbdge Chattanooga, Columbus & Fla., 15

Camden

Millen, Ga.,

Hart's Roads, Fla., Millen, Jesup & Florida,

. 32

Campbell

Atlanta, Ga.,

1Columbus, Ga.,

Georgia Midland,

1 10

Carroll

Chattanooga, Tenn., LaGrange, Ga.,

Rome & Carrollton,

. 18

Catoosa

Augusta, Ga.,

Chattanooga, Tenn., A. & C. A. 1..,

.. 12

Chatham

Eastman, Ga.,

Savannah, Ga.,

Eastman & Savannah,

.. 15

Chatham

Savannah, Ga.,

Tybee Island,

Tybee,

. 20

Chattahoochee Chattahoochee

ColumbUS, Ga., Albany, Ga.,

Fla. Line via Bainbdge Chattanooga, Columbus & Fla.,

ICOlumbus,

Brunswick & W.,

.

1106

Chattooga

Chattanooga, Tenn., LaGrange,

Rome & Carrollton,

. 18

Clarke

ColumbUS, Ga.,

Athens,

Athens & Columbus,

.. 6

ColqUitt

Macon,

Florida Line,

Macon & Florida,

. 21

Columbia

Augusta,

Chicago, Ill.,

Augusta, Elberton & Chicago, .. 20

Columbia

Augusta,

!Chattanooga, Tenn., IAugusta & C. A. L.,

( 22

Coweta

Newnan, G. ~, .. l-lI'ranKlln,

1

- ..

11

Coweta Dade

::::::::::::::::::! 1\,t-lama,

1

cnattanoog a,ILaurange,

11 9

Dawson

A. ugUSta,

1

18

Decatur

. l:'ommous,

[

24

Dodge Dooly

.. .J!.!:LSTtIllRU, ... .1

.... ............1

15

ll\lacOll,

j'I1a. LIne,

11"J&COO ~ .r-la., ...........

36

$180,000 12

45,000

3

210,000

75,000 19

225,000

420,000 43

300,000 20

375,000 25 270,000 225,000 33 480,000 32 150,000 10 270,000 18
180,000 12 225,000 300,000 35

125400,,000000 26

270,000 18

90,000

6

315.000 21

300,000

330,000 ,12

165,000

165,000 22

13~,000

9

270,000 18

360,000 24

225,000 15

540,000 36

$180,OOO!NO R.R. 45,000

285,000

645,000

300,000

375,0001NO R. R. ....

Ot

495,000

Ot

480,000 No R.R.

150,000

270,000

180,000

525,000
390,000INNOo RR..RR.. 270,000 No R.R. 90,000 315,000 No R.R.

630,000

330,000
135,000 270,000[No R.R. 360,000 225,000 540,000INo R.R.

Dougherty,

Albany,

Columbus,

B. & W.,

.

5

Early,

Columbus,

Fla. LIne via Bainbdge Chas., Col. & Fla.,

. 14

Elbert,

Augusta. Ga.,

Chicago, Ill.,

Aug., Elberton & CIlI.,

. 16

Emanuel,

Millen,

Hart's Road, Fla

Millen, Jesup & }<'la.,

.. 12

.Fannin,

Wrigbtsville,

Hawkinsville,

Wrightsville & Dublin,

.. 20

!~~;-::.::;:.:.:::.:.:.:~:.:.:.:~ ~t1:~1~~~~~:~;;::~::::::::~ ~~~~~~~:.:~.:.;.:.~:.~~::~~:~~:~ ~~~~~~0;i:.:,:::::~~~:~~~~:~~:~::.::.:.:.::1

12
14 9 27

Gilmer,

Wrightsville,

HawkinsvMe,

Wrightsville & Dublin,

. 10

ii~R~r.~~~.~.'

:::::::::: 1~~~~~~: ::::::::::::::::::::: g~~~~f~o;;g~: :::::::::: 1~~:'':c~~.ht:, . ::::::::::::::::::::::::1

18 27

~[~~;\_ ~~~: Hall,

Gainesville, ."

Dahlonega,

Gainasvil\e & Dahl.,

. 15

~~ftt:~: i~Y~~");"1 19 20 15 9 22 18 27

20

Jackson,

Augusta,

Chattanooga,

Aug. & C. A. L.,

. 16

Jasper,

Covington,

Macou,

Cov. '-~ Macou,

. 27

Jefferson, Fla.,

Quitman, Ga.,

Monticello, Fla.,

Monticello Short Line,

. 10

Johnson,

Wrightsville,

Hawkinsville,

Wrightsville & Dub.,

..

8

Jones, Laurens,

Covington, Wrightsville,

Macon, Hawkinsville,

Covington & Macon, ...... Wrightsville & Dub.,

.. 1 ..

20 80

fr~~rty;::::::::::::::::::::: t~~fei:' ::::::::::::: :::::::: 191;;~~~SSt~::G~:;:::::: ~~*e~:'

:.: :.::: : ::::::::::::

12 15

Liberty,

Millen,

Hart's Road, Fla.,

Millen, Jesup & Florida,

.. 12

Lincoln,

Augusta,

Chicago,

Augusta, Elberton & Chicago, . 27

Lincoln,

Augusta,

Chattanooga,

Augusta & C. A. L.,

. 10

wwndes,

Valdosta,

,.. Madison, Fla.,

Georgia & Florida Midland, .. 16

Leon, Fla.,

Thomasville,

Tallahassee, Fla.,

Thomasville & Tallahassee, .. 18

Lumpkin,

Gainesville,

Dahlonega,

Gainesville & Dahlouega,

..

7

McIntosh, Madison, Meriwether,

Darien, 'Augusta, Atlanta,

Johnston Sta., Ga., Chattanooga, Columbus,

Darien, Augusta & C.,I\. L., Georgia Midland,



..1
.

12 18 29

Miller,

Col u m bUS,

Fla. Line via Bain bdge Chat., Col. & Fla. ,

.. 12

Mitchell,

Camilla,

Cuthbert,

Camilla & Cuthhert

~

. 10

'MIDoin~~tgeeo7me:ry,::: ::::.:::: E1Maas,t;m~a~n,, :.: : ::~:::Sga~fv~a:bn:n~~a:h_","""",,::::.::: E~~als&tum~~a~n~&~S..av~:a~n::n:a::h::,::::::::::::::1.

Muscogee,

1\.t1anta,

Columbu1l,

"eorgia Midland,

.

18
15 8 10

~ 75,000

5

210,000 14

240,000 16

180,000 12

800,000 20

180,000 12

210,000 14

185,000

9

405,000

150,000 87

270,000 18

40[),000

225,000 42

285,000 19

300,000

225,fJOO 3[)

185,000

8:30,000 81

195,000 1:,

405,000 27

800,000 20

2-10,000 16

405,000 27

150,000 10

120,000

8

800,000 20

450,000 80

180,000 12

225,000

180,000 . 27

405,000 1

1

124500,'O00()0O1

87 16

270,000 18

10;),000

71

180,000 12

279,0001 18 48",000 29

180,000 12

150,000 10

270,000 18

225,000 15

- 120,000

150,000

$ 75,000 210,000 240,000
180,0001 No RR. 800,000 180,000 No RR 210,000
185,000 INoR.R.
555,000 270,000

630,000 2&5,000

525,000

INoRR. 465,000 No RR 195,000 405,000

300'000rNO R.R.

240,000

I-'

405,000 No RR Ot

150,000

0:.

120,000

300,000

450,000

1SO,00O

405,000 INoRR.
5.55,000 240,000 270,000 105,000 180,000
270,0001NO RIt. 435,000
'M'l150,000
270,000 No RR 225,00 No RR

MllSQ~, JIluscpg'\)e, Ne\vtoll,

G'bl11'!nbus, Columbus Columbus,

Athens, ~

jAthens & Dolumbus, ~..........

Ii

Fla. Line Via Bainbdge Chattanooga, Columbus & Fla.,

7

~\thens,

Athens & Columbus,.................. 18

'$180'OJJOj

1~5.000

37

270,000

~')i~

Ne'vtoIl, Oeonee, Oglethorpe,
Pik.e

Covington,
~olumbus, Columbus,
Augusta,

:?IIaeon, Athens, Chattauooga,
Atll,ens,

COYillgt~n & ~lacon,

8

IAthens & Columbus,..................

6

]Augusta & c. A. L.,

1R

I,Atheus & Columbus,.................. 20

120~OOO

26

90,000 6

270,000 18

30o,o001 20

390,000 90,000 270,0001 300,000

Polk, Pulaski, Rabun Randolph,

Chattanooga, Wrightsville,
IAugusta,
CHmillH,

LH('range, f:!H:vkinsville, (. hlCago Cuthbert,

Rome & Columbus,

14[

Wright~ville & J?ub.,.................. 1~

rAUg., Elb. & ChI.,

16,

Cam. & Cuth.,............................. 12'[

2JO,000, 14

180,0001 1~1

240,000, 101.

180,000

,

210,000 180,000 240,000

Randoll,h,

Columbus,

Fla. Line via Bainbdge Chat., CoL & Aug.,..................... 21

315,000 33

495,000

Riehmond,

Augusta,

Chicago,

Aug., Elb. & Chi.,

101

150,000

1

Riehmond,

Augusta,

Chattanooga,

Aug. & C. A. L.,..........................

9

135,000 191

285,000

Bpald.ing,

Columbus,

Athens,

!Ath. & Col.,

10

150,000 10.'

150,000

Ste\mrt,

Albany,

Columbus,

B. & W.,

10

150,000

,

Stewart,

Columbus,

Fla. Line via Bainbdge Chat., Col. & Aug.,..................... 22

330,000 321

480,000

Talbot,
Tatll~lll!

c.o1umbus, Eastmun,

A. thens,

".th. & Col.,

Savannah,

-

Eastman & Sav'h,

18

270,000 18,

270,000

45

675,0001

INa R.R.

'l'atnall,

Millen,

Hart's Roads, Fla., Millen, Jesup & Fla.,.................. 42 1

680,000 871

1,305,000

tg ~~;.~~i: ::::::::::::::::::::::: f1~~~;:':..: .:.:::::::::: ~~r~~nb~~;:::::::::::::::::: ~~~~~.l~ ~.~~~.'.~:.:: ::::::::::

ThomHs,

Thomasville,

Tallahassee, Fla.,

Thomasv. & Tallahassee,............

1
,l16

Troup,

Chattanooga,

LaGrange,

'Rome", C.,..............

12[

~g:ggg
240,000 1RO, 000

ig, l16
12

~g:ggg
240,000 180,000

f-' 01 -l

Upson, WHlker,

Columbus, Cbattauooga,

Athens, LaGrange,

IRAothm...e&&CCol.,.,

10 ' 21

150,000 101 31:;'0001 211

150,000 315,000!NoRR

Walton,

Colnmbus,

Athens,

,A th & Col.,

18]

270,IJOO 1H

270,000

Warne,

Millen, :

Hart's Roads, Fla., ]Millen, Jesup & Fla.,.................. 26

390,000 261

390,000

Webster

Albany,

Columbus,

B. & ".'.,...................................... 201

300,000'1 201

300,000

Wbltficld, Wilkes, Worth,

Chattanooga, IAugnsta, Macon,

Augnsta,

IAug. & C. A. L.,.......................... 10

150,.000 10

150,000

""""""""""1' Chattauooga,
F1H. Line,

iAug. & C. A. L.,.......................... 21

315,0001 21

315,000

Macon & Fla.,

_ _91' ,~,OOOI_ _91' _ _ 135,0001

..

Total,

.. 1

I

1 1726 $ 25,R90,OOO

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I



I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I