REPORT. OFFICE OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF GEORGIA, To His Excellency, Henry D. McDaniel, Governor, Etc.: SIR-We have the honor to present the following statement of the operations of the Railroad Commission since the date of our last report. So far as the action of the Commission is embraced in the circulars issued from time to time, it can be readily understood by reference to the circulars which are hereto appended, and which, in each case, shows on its face the object for which they were issued. It will be seen that four new railroad companies, namely: Dublin & Wrightsville, Rome & Carrolton. Americus, Preston & Lumpkin, and Buena Vista & Ellaville have applied to the Commission for a tariff of freight and passenger rates. These have been furnished and the roads are now operating under them. Questions of much importance, involving sections of the Act creating the Railroad Commission, have come before us and have been decided. The first is the case of Atlanta Chamber of Commerce against the Southern Railway and Steamship Association. The nature and character of this case, the ruling of the Commission therein, and the grounds on which the ruling is based and fully set out in the decision, which is hereto attached. The next were the cases of Jno. N. Dunn and Aaron Haas against the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia, and the Western & Atlantic Railroad Companies. These cases involved a construction of section V. of the Act creating the Commission, and particularly the proviso to that section. In each of these cases the constitutionality of certain parts of that Act was assailed. The Commissioners, however, restricted their decisions to a construction of the different sections of the Act in question, and declined to consider or determine the constitutional objections made. By the Constitution of the State, the duty of pronouncing upon the constitutionality of laws is entrusted to the Judiciary Department of the Government. In our view, the Commission is not a branch of the Judiciary of the State, but is a legislative agency, created to perform certain legislative duties, which can be more conveniently performed through that agency than is practicable by the direct action of the Legislature. This is the view of the character of the Commission, taken by our own Supreme Court, and by Mr. Justice Woods, in what is known as the Tilley case, in the United States Circuit Court at Savannah. In the cases of Dunn and Haas against the railroad companies, which were heard together, a demurrer was interposed upon the ground that it would be a violation of the provision of the Federal Constitution, which reserves to Congress the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the several States, for the Commission to take jurisdiction of the cases and grant the relief prayed for; and by the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company, upon the further ground that that Company, by virtue of its contract of lease with the State, is not subject to the operation of the law creating the Commission. These demurrers were overruled in the decision which is appended to the report. The decision went no further; we had formulated no rule or circular on the subject, and had arrived at no decision on the merits of the case. The Western & Atlantic Railroad Company then filed a bill against the Commissioners in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia, containing substantially the grounds set out in its demurrer, and praying for an injunction against the Commissioners restraining them from making a rule or order on the subject. The application for injunction came on to be heard before Mr. Justice Woods of the Supreme Court of the United States, who held that the application for injunction was premature, and declined to grant the same. He directed the bill, however, to be retained for the purpose of having the question adjudicated as to the jurisdiction of the Commission over that Company under the allegations of the bill. The case is still pending in the Circuit Court, so far as we are informed. On the argument in the first instance, before the Commission, and afterwards, before Justice Woods, a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, in the case of the people of Illinois against the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company was relied on as showing the right of the Commission to entertain the cases made by Dunn and Haas, and grant the relief they sought. In the Illinois case it was alleged that the railroad company charged one party fifteen cents per hundred pounds for transporting goods from Peoria, Illinois, to New York city, and on the same day charged another party twenty-five cents per hundred for the same class of goods from Gilman, Illinois to New York-Gilman being eighty-six miles nearer than Peoria to New York; and that this constituted unjust discrimination, which was prohibited by the law of that State. The Illinois court sustained the action, which was one of debt brought against the railroad company under the statute for unjust discrimination, holding that the Act was not to be limited in its application to freights carried from one point to another wholly within the State, but may as well apply where the carriage is from a point within the State to a point without the State. The Commissioners were informed that the Illinois case had been carried by the railroad company to the Supreme Court of the United States, and had already been argued before that court. Under these circumstances it was deemed proper to suspend all further action in the cases of Dunn and Haas, until the Illinois case should be decided. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has recently been pronounced and is adverse to the view taken by the Supreme Court of Illinois. The majority of the court is reported to have decided that the Illinois statute, as applied to freights going out of the State, was a regulation of inter-state commerce which can only be appropriately made by general rules and principles which demand that it should be done by Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Three members of the court, including the Chief Justice, dissented from this opinion, and are reported to have held that in the absence of legislation by Congress on the subject the States could legislate thereon. We have not seen the text of the decision. It is to be hoped that it will go far toward determining many difficult and perplexing questions now arising in the different States of the Union as to the power and limits of State authority on such subjects. It is to be regretted that, on a question of so great importance and such general interest, that high tribunal should be divided in opinion. The failure of Congress, so far, to legislate on this subject will, under this decision of the Supreme Court, practically leave the citizens of the country in many instances, subject to unreasonable charges and unjust discriminations, for which no remedy is provided by law. Circular No. 48, issued by the Commission in May, 1884, prescribed that a charge of no more than two dollars per car would be allowed for switching or transferring cars from any point on any road to any connecting road or warehouse within a space of three miles from starting point. It was claimed by some of the railroads that the words "per car," used in the Circular, meant a car load of 20,000 pounds, and that, where a car weighed more than 20,000 pounds, the road could charge for the excess in the same proportion for this service. The matter came before the Commission on complaint made, and we decided that, under the Circular referred to, no more than two dollars per car, without regard to weight or contents, could be charged. A revision of the Commissioners' classification has become necessary in order to embrace many articles that are not now included therein, as well as to note changes that have been made in the classification of certain articles since the original classification was made. The Commissioners are now engaged on this work. Matters are frequently brought to our attention by parties in different parts of the State, over which we have no jurisdiction, and many requests come to us for information, on subjects supposed to be within our knowledge relating to railroads. The information is promptly given if in our power, and where we cannot take cognizance of the subject matter of application, we refer the party to what we consider the proper quarter to apply for relief. The operations of the Commission, while affording, as we believe, reasonable satisfaction to the people, have not, in our judgment, worked injury or injustice to the railroads. The reports of the different companies recently made to this office of their operations for the past year, notwithstanding the general depression that affects the prosperity of the country, show, in almost every instance, a striking increase in their business and earnings. With a view of obtaining reliable information as to the railroads now being constructed in the State, the Commission issued Circular No. 77, calling upon all railroads doing business in the State and all companies having railroads under construction, to make quarterly reports to the Commission-the first to be filed by October 10, 1886-showing number of miles of track laid during the quarter, and number of miles graded; the number and length of side-tracks laid during same time. New companies were requested to report the number of miles of track laid and number of miles graded at the time of making their first report. This Circular has met with but a partial response from the railroad companies. Enough information, however, has been obtained to warrant the belief that, perhaps, as many miles have been constructed within the past year as ever before in the history of the State. About two hundred miles of track has been laid, and the incomplete reports we have show that more than one hundred miles have been graded, upon which the track has not been laid. Several other lines of magnitude and importance have been projected and seem in a fair way of being brought to successful completion. The General Assembly of the State, by the Act of September 27, 1883, amendatory of the Act creating the Railroad Commission, provided that not more than fifty cents per square of usual advertising space, when less than a column was occupied, nor more than twelve dollars per column, when as much space as a column was occupied, should be charged by the newspapers doing the work, for the publication of the schedules established by the Commission, or any changes or revision of such schedules. The law designates cities of the State where this publication shall be made. The newspapers in the places designated claim, and we think justly, that the amont allowed by law is inadequate compensation for this service. We respectfully recommend that one dollar per square be allowed for these publications, when space less than a colnum is occupied, and twenty dollars per column when that much or more space is occupied. The appropriations allowed by law to the Commission for office-rent, furniture, stationery and printing is inadequate. With the closest economy, we have been unable to keep our expenses within the appropriation. The office is greatly in need of an iron safe in which to keep records and valuable papers pertaining to its business. We respectfully request also, that a sufficient appropriation, say one hundred dollars, be made to have printed a Railroad Map of the State. A map of this kind was prepared when |