The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-04-21
THEY REFUSED TO DO so
WANT FIRST TO HEAR FROM
THE RAILROADS.
PEARSON VOTED FOR A REDUCTION
The Hearing on the Complaint Will be Held al
the Next Meeting, May 10th. Railroads
Ordered to Appear and
Show Cause.
Show Cause.

As predicted in this paper two weeks
ago, the passenger rate question has
again come up before the Railroad
Commission. As also stated at thar
time, it came up on complaint of no
less Il person than Governor Russell.
The complaint was filed last might a;
q special session of the Commission
called for that purpose, by Col. John w
Hinsdale, w. G.. Douglas and Charles
A. Cook, attorneys for the State OF
North Carolina.
When the Commission was called to
order ut $50 o'clock Col. Hinsdale an
mounced that he had three complaints
made by the Governor of North Caro-
lina-to lay before the Commission.
asking a reduction in passenger rates
against the North Carolina Railroad and
the Southern Railway. its lessee; the
second against the Wilmington ana
Weldon Railroad Company, and the
third against the Raleigh and CASTOR
Railroad Company.
He then read these complaints, tn,
first of which was as follows:
Daniel l.. Russell, Governor of North
Carolina
VS..
The North Carolina Railroad Company
and the Southern Railway Company.
its lessee.
Complaint for reduction of passenger
rates.
TO the Honorable Board of Railroad
Commissioners of North Carolina:
AT the instance and request of the
Governor of North Carolina, we have
been retained to represent the people of
the State of North Carolina. in whose
behalf, we present this complaint, and
respectfully ask that your honorable
Board will reduce the inter-State, or
domestic rates on the North Carolina
Railroad, to two and one-hah cents per
mile for first class, and two cents per
mile for second class passengers.
In view of the action of your honor
able body, in refusing to make a genel.
al reduction of passenger rates operat.
ing on the three great railroad systems
of the State. on account of the supposed
meaning and application of the decision
of the Supreme court of the Uniteo
States, in what is known as the Ne
braska case, it is deemed advisable that
test cases should be at once presented
to the courts, in order that it may bt
definitely determined to what extent your
honorable board still has the right to
regulate passenger fares. 1T is sug
gested that the effect of the Nebraska
decision has been misc0nceived, and that
it does not prevent this Commission
from reducing the passenger rates upon
certain of the railroads in the State.
We are advised that the Nebraska
decision does ndt interfere with tn.
0f;n zsf Tt,
this case, the railroad commissioners
of Nebraska undertook to reduce tn,
freight rates of certain railroads in thar
State so low that, instead of receiving
q fair compensation for the services
rendered, they would have operated
said railroads at positive loss.
The case settled several points:
1. A railroad corporation is a person
within the meaning of the fourteenth
amendment. declaring that no State.
shall deprive any person of property
without due process of law, nor deny
TO any person within its jurisdiction tn,
equal protection of the laws.
=. n State enactment, or regulations
made under the authority of State
enactment, establishing rates for the
transportation of persons or property by
railroads that will not admit of the car
rier earning such compensation as under
all the circumstances IS just to it and
TO the public, would deprive such car
rier of its property without due process
of law, and deny to it the due protec-
ton of the laws, and would therefore be
repugnant to the fourteenth amendment
of the constitution of the United
States
Q. While rates for the transportation
Of persons and property within the
limits of a State are primarily for its
determination, the question whether
they are so unreasonably low as to de-
prive the carrier of its property without
such compensation as the constitution
secures, and therefore without due pro-
cess of law, cannot be so c0nclusiyely
determined by the Legislature of the
State or by regulations adopted under
cts authority, that the matter may not
become the subject of judicial inquiry.
4. That reduction of local freight
rates, SO low as TO prevent the company
from receiving any compensation, is
unconstitutional.
.. mat the reasonableness or unrea-
sonableness of rates prescribed by IA
state Tor transportation of persons and
property, wholly within it's limits. must
Interstate business done DIV the CAR
rier, or to the profits derived from it.
And that the State cannot reduce the
profits from domestic business TO moth
ing, because the company is making n
fair return on its interstate traffic.
q. That railroad corporation is NOT
entitled to exact such charges for trans
portaion as will enable it at all times
to meet operating expenses. pay inter
est ON its obligations, and declare a
dividend to stockholders; but the rates
must be fixed with reference TO the
fair value of the property used for the
public, or the fair value of the service
rendered
There is one question which was not
presented to or passed upon by the SUI
preme court in this case. This question
is still open, viz: what proportion Of