174
The Green Bag
and comment; the greater danger lies in a general disregard of the law. The machinery of the state is ample to protect the innocent. but not potent at times to punish the guilty, Frederick Heindrich of New York defended Mr. Lindsey's views, disagreeing with Judge Clearwater. Simon Fleischmann of Buflalo presented the report of the Committee on Proposed Legis lation, which favored amending the practice in the Surrogate's Court. The committee reported that bills had failed in the Legisla ture for several years and recommended that the committee be continued to advocate their passage. George P. Decker of Rochester presented the report from the Committee on Law Re form. Its recommendations are embodied in a number of bills that have been prepared for presentation to the Legislature. The report was accepetd with a slight amendment. SALARIES OF FEDERAL JUDGES
The afternoon session opened with a"report of the committee on the salary of federal judges, which was submitted by William B. Hornblower of New York City, the chairman. It urged that the district judges of the United States should receive a salary equal to that received by the judges of state appellate courts of the state in which they reside. Such salaries of district judges, the report recom mended, should not exceed $9,000 in any event, however. “The Dishonesty of Sovereignties" was the subject of an interesting paper presented by Simon Fleischmann of Bufialo, treating of the doctrine of the immunity of the state from suits. “The nation, the state, the county and the city," he said, “should be placed by legislative, or, if possible, by constitutional enactment upon precisely the same basis as is every individual and private corporation. There should be no distinction or quibbling as to the difference between governmental or other functions." The report of the special committee on medical expert testimony, which was given by Judge A. T. Clearwater of Kingston, recom mended the submission to the legislature of a bill substantially the same as that considered at the last annual meeting, which was defeated in the Senate after having passed the Assembly. A resolution was adopted providing for the appointment of a committee composed of one representative from each
judicial district to urge its passage by the legislature. REASONABLE RAILROAD RATES
In the evening, Senator Joseph W. Bailey of Texas discussed government regulation of railroads, giving the annual address before the Association. He said in part:— The Supreme Court has expressly and correctly decided that the states possess the power to regulate intra-state railroad charges, and it has decided in effect that Congress possesses a like power over interstate railroad charges. It has also decided that all such charges are subject to a judicial in quiry as to their reasonableness; but it has not yet laid down a satisfactory rule by which the reason ableness of every charge must be judged. What is a reasonable rate? May it be so low on one hand as to almost touch the point of confiscation, or so high on the other hand as barely to miss the line of extortion; and is it possible that the people can be compelled to pay and the railroad compelled to accept any rate between these wide extremes? I think not. In my judgment a reasonable rate must mean one which affords the railroad a just compensation for its services. If it means more than that, neither the legislature of any state nor the Con gress of the United States has any right to compel the people to pay it; and if it means any less than that, neither the legislature of any state nor the Congress of the United States has any power to compel the railroad to accept it.
The speaker then quoted at considerable length from Smyth v. Amer, deducing the following conclusions therefrom:— All of these statements must be read together and read with reference to each other; and reading them in that way, I deduce from them all that Judge Harlan meant to say was: First, That the public is entitled to use a rail road upon the payment of a just compensation for the service rendered; and Second, That in determining what is a just com pensation for the railroad's service we must look to the fair value of the property with which the service is rendered. To the first deduction I assent without qualifica tion; and I will assent to the second, if it is to be treated as a mere rule of evidence tending to estab lish what constitutes a just compensation. I cannot, however, accept the doctrine that a rail road is entitled to such rates as will yield a fair return on the value of its property irrespective of the value of its services‘I nor will I agree that a railroad can be required to render a service for less than a just compensation in order to reduce its net income to a fair return on its property. The power to regulate the charges of a common carrier was never conferred on any government for the purpose of enabling it to prevent losses or to limit profits, but it is designated. always and only, for the pro tection of the people against over-charges. . . . I do not doubt that in determining what is a just compensation for the use of any property. it is proper and even necessary for us to consider the value of that property in connection with the ser
