Show OUR PUBLIC FORUM II 11 dejohnson LE Johnson on two cent passenger Pae rate rates the farmers of thia this nation are agov vitally Int interested crested el in railroad rates and equity between te e n passenger and freight rates li in especially important to the man who follows the plow for the farmer travels very little but ho he la Is a heavy con tri butor to the tha freight revenues some so me of the stated have a two cent pai pasi euer enzer rate and whatever loss ie jr incurred Is 1 ered through freight revenue tho the jus lice of euch such a procedure wa was recently passed upon by the supreme court of cat nest virginia and the decision de clelon la Is so far reaching that we have L E johnson Joh neon president tot of the nor folk and slid It Allway whose road coyit contested ested the case to bricky review the suit mr jobeson eald said in part some ten year years ago passenger pase enger fare were fixed ly by the legislature legislatures of a large number of elates at two icente cents a colle mile As it basis 1 for sich ecknor economic to legislation no ivain ilaf made of the cost of doing the so 0 o regulated ted nor was wag on attention given to the fat whether leuch fauch A x rate would yield to the rail rall ray way companies an adequate or any 1 net return upon the capital hinves invested ted in conducting this clasa class of business buel neap such 11 law will pained in west virginia in 1907 the tho norfolk I 1 nd western JT allway company put the tile rate into inta effect jr I 1 maintained it for two years ha its accounting during these two tuo yeara bowed that two cents a mile per passenger barely paid the out of pocket coet cost and noth ing ingga was left to pay any return on capital invested it bought sought relief from the courts expert accountants fur for both the tile state and the rail ay corn coin pany testified that the claims of the railroad ere by the facts to cents did not pay the coat cost of currying cirr ying a passenger a mile the tile state however contended that the rall railroad road as em earning ning enough surplus on its it state freight business to give a fair return upon the capital used la in if its passenger as well ae its freight business for the purpose purposes of the cae case the railroad did not deny this but held to tta its contention that the state could not segregate ita its pas I 1 enger bu busl alness nee for rate filing fixing with out til allowing lowing a rate that rould be to pay par the cot cost of doing bu business and to give some return upon the capital invested in loins joing tho business regulated thia this was the issue presented to tho the su sit preme court its decision responds to the judgment of the sentiment of the country tte eu su preme court says that eren even though a railroad earne earns a surplus on a it far nicular commodity by charging rca r ca rates that affords no reason for compelling it to haul another s person or property for leea less than cost the surplus from a reasonable rate properly belonga to the railway corn coin pany if it tho the Bur plira Is earned from an rate then that rate should be reduced the state may not even up ly requiring the railroad to carry other trade tor for nothing or for lees less than coat cost tho decision Is a wholesome one and anti demonstrate demonstrates that the ordinary rules of fair dealing apply to railway the tact fact that ore make makes a surplus ci ti hi hid wheat crop would neier be ared aa as a reason for com polling lintn to sell hie his cotton at lees less than coat it would not satisfy the man aric wanted bread to be told that its high price enabled the cotton manufacturer to get his raw product for lese less than cost in tats case the court the homely maxim that each tub must sund upon its jovn bottom |