425; 51 Law. Ed. 553, wherein it was declared that Courts had no jurisdiction to determine the question of rates, since the whole matter was addressed to the Interstate Commerce Commission, citing with approval the case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242; 50 Law. Ed. 1011. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that all contracts with respect to rates on transportation, although entered into prior to the creation of the rate-making body, are void if in conflict with the subsequent legislation. In the case of L. & N. R. R. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467; 55 Law. Ed. 297, the Court proceeds upon the theory that a contract about a matter of public concern, lawful when made, was avoided by laws thereafter enacted, making it unlawful, and that every owner of property held the same subject to such action as the sovereign power may, in the exercise of legitimate sovereignty, adopt in relation to it. Since the Interstate Commerce Commission requires that all rates be filed and published with it, a Railroad experiences but little difficulty in escaping a rate which may be provided in a City ordinance, because, the rates recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission, with respect to all Interstate business, and irrespective of everything else, must prevail. Railroad v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98; 39 Law. Ed. 910. It would seem that, where the City by its charter, or by the general laws, is given the arbitrary right to grant or withhold its consent to the use of its streets, and may impose such conditions as it sees fit as a consideration for the use of the streets, when a Railroad agrees to switch cars for a prescribed rate the obligation will be binding, unless the State, in the exercise of its Supreme Power, chooses to lodge the rate-making power with some creature of its own, ordinarly designated as the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, or Public Utilities Commission. I would say that, where a State creates a Commission with powers to fix rates, after the fashion of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and requires Railroads to file and publish their tariffs with it upon intrastate business, in such event the Railroad could file with such Commission a different rate than that fixed by ordinance, and the ordinance requirement would be rendered nugatory. This proposition was sustained by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the case of Monitowoc v. Monitowoc Traction Company, 145 Wis. 13, wherein it was said that although a Railroad contracted with a City to haul passengers between certain points for a specified amount, it could lawfully avoid this obligation by filing with the State Railroad and State Warehouse Commission a schedule showing a greater charge for such service than that amount, provided the Commission would allow such increased charge as reasonable. In conclusion, I think that in all the States where intrastate rates are regulated and determined by Commissions, that no contract may be lawfully entered into with the intention of agreeing upon a rate other than that recognized as binding and operative by the Commission. It seems to me that the best opportunity for the preservation of any of the property rights of the common carriers in this country, lies in a campaign of aggressive assertiveness by the Railroads themselves. They have been to quiescent and obsolescent in recent years, and their silence has been construed as a confession of weakness, or an acquiescence in a presumption of guilt. Perhaps in the beginning, Railroads were ruthless in many instances, arrogant and thoughtless in others, but the sins of those who went before should not in fairness be now visited upon their innocent successors. A Railroad is still a private property. although the Federal Government, the States and the Municipalities are fast stripping it of all the benefits and indicia of such ownership. I believe, that if commissions and regulatory statutes are going to take away from the Railroad all its profits and means to sustain itself, and at the same time demand that the Railroad give the public better service without adequate compensation, then the public should in common honesty purchase and pay for that which is to be destroyed for nothing. The idea is abhorrent to me that public utilities should be publicly owned and operated. I fear the effect upon the body politic would be most disastrous, but, if the public undertakes to control and run an enterprise without investing any money in it, and if the directors of a Railroad must act alone at the dictation of the public, it would be far better for all concerned if the Railroad properties were bought outright and the owners at least paid something for their interests, instead of being permitted only to nominally hold a worthless property without hope of reward or increment. A Railroad should be permitted to be managed and operated by its owners, whether the Government or private individuals. If the Government owns the Railroad, it may do with the property as it wishes, and the Railroad becomes a part of the federal machine to be dealt with as other national objects. But if the Railroad is to be owned by private capital, then its owners should be permitted to manage that which belongs to them as they please, subject only to the obligation that the Railroad, as a public servant, give adequate service at a reasonable price, and without discrimination, irrespective of the profit which its owners may make out of the operation of their property. The purpose of the Railroad, of course, is to make money for its owners by rendering service to the public. If the public be served at reasonable prices, all public concern in the operation or management of the Railroad should cease, and it should be permitted to earn, like any other private enterprise, whatever it can. The profits of the business are the concern of the investors, not of the public. Any other system than this will be unsound economically, and will result disastrously. The trend of legislation has been to protect private property, until it become a Railroad property, when it loses all the attributes of private property, and becomes subject to all kinds of legislative exploitation. At present no conservative person is willing to invest money in the stocks and bonds of Railroads, and consequently these securities have become almost purely speculative. Business seems to require that it be removed from legislative influences, because the tentacles of the law-making bodies are stretching out in other directions than the Railroads, and this has brought about a tremendous stagnation in all business. We appear to have passed from an age of "Antlered Vandalism" or menagerie performances, through a period of recrudescent standpat absolutism, into an era of grape juice diplomacy and transcontinental legislative junkettings. Well may the pessimist roam through the land prophesying and presaging calamity and disaster, especially if he be so unfortunate as to be financially interested in public service corporations or hot house industries, like sugar or wool. If the Government covets the Railroads, and wants to own them, let a fair and just price be paid for the properties while they are still parts of operating entities, but it is highly immoral for the Government to pursue a policy of destruction until the Railroads are financially wrecked, and then buy them at ruinous figures thus arbitrarily and artificially created. Mr. L. D. Smith:-Notwithstanding the fact that the author of this distinguished and most valuable paper is an active member of this Association, I think we are indebted to him, in a large measure for the great interest he has excited in this most interesting paper, and as an expression of our appreciation of it, I move to make him an Honorary Member of this Association. Motion seconded, put before the Association and carried unanimously, and Mr. Pierce declared forever an Honorary Member of this Association. The President:-I will call upon the Secretary for his report before we adjourn for lunch, but before doing that, a telegram has just been handed me from Walnut Ridge, Arkansas, reading as follows: WALNUT RIDGE, ARK., JUNE 25, 1913. HON ALBERT W. BIGGS, President State Bar Ass'n, Memphis, Tenn. We are instructed by the Bar Ass'n of the Eighth Chancery Circuit of Arkansas in session here to extend to your honorable body fraternal greetings. John B. McCaleb, Pres. I shall request the Secretary of this Association to thank the Arkansas Bar meeting of the Eighth Chancery Circuit for its kind message, and to reply in kind. JUNE 26th, 1913 JOHN B. MCCALEB, President, Bar Association, 8th Chancery Circuit, Walnut Ridge, Ark. The Bar Association of Tennessee by resolution duly passed has directed me to express to you its appreciation of your kind greetings and to extend to you the fraternal greetings of this Association. Chas. H. Smith, Secretary. The Secretary:-Mr. Chairman, I have a report of the Committee on Grievances, which is very brief, and I will read it. To The President and Members of The Bar Association of Tennessee: Your Committee on Grievances begs leave to submit the following report: Your Commitee has received no complaint of any character, and therefore conditions have not been such as to call for a meeting of the Committee. Respectfully submitted, Ed. T. Seay, Chairman. On motion the report was adopted. The Secretary:-The next report, Mr. Chairman, is from the Committee on Publications, Mr. Rankin being the Chairman of that Committee. Mr. Rankin:-The making of this report, Mr. Chairman, reminds me of my college days and of a report that was accustomed to be made by the Adjutant of our military department. In making our report to him on the occasion of a parade-a pub |