The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-11-28
THEY MAY FIX CARLOAD
The Question Of Exemption by Charter
is Not Before the Court.
OPINION WRITTEN BY JUDGE DOUGLAS
The Minimum Carl lad" Does Not Prescribe
the Amount Actually to be Carried, But
Simply Establishes Basis From
Which Rates Are Computed

The Corporation Commission has
finally won in the fertilizer rate case
with the Seaboard Air Line
On yesterday the Supreme Court
rendered its decision in the case, af-
firming the judgment of the court be-
low to which the case was appealed
from the Commission.
The suit was brought on by the
Seaboard Air Line excepting to circu-
lar No. /, issued by the Commission,
liking the rate to be charged for the
transportation of fertilizers and estab-
fishing a minimum carload" of ten
tons. The Commission, after giving
the railroad hearing refused to
amend the circular, and the case was
appealed TO the Superior Court, where
the decision of the Commission was
upheld, and then it was carried to
the Supreme Court, whose decision
rendered yesterday sustains the Com
mission.
The railroads contention was that
the Corporation Commission had no
right to establish a minimum carload
for the road, and also that in the
case of the Raleigh and Castor and
SeabOard and Roanoke Roads, the
Commission had no right to fix the
rate to be charged, as the charters of
these roads were granted prior to the
adoption of the constitution of 1868,
the provisions of which give the Leg
islature power to amend or alter the
charter of corporation.
The opinion of the court was writ
ten by Judge Douglas. 1t is in part as
follows:
~ = At the hearing of the appeal
before the Superior Court. the defen-
dants abandoned all contention that
the rates were unreasonable. This dis
poses of al 1.-The exceptions except the
first. <
1T is true the defendants in the
Superior Court introduced among their
evidence the original charter of the
Raleigh and CASTOR Railroad and Sea-
board and Roanoke Company, and con-
tended that the provisions of the con-
stitution of 1868 exempted them from
the operation of the circular COM
planned of.
Whatever merit there may be in
the contention it is not now properly
before us, as it is not included in the
defendants exceptions to the order.
Being a personal exception. it does
not come within the judicial cogni
zance of the court, and must be spe-
officially pleaded in bar
Not having been so pleaded it must
be waived at least so far as the pres
emit case is concerned. What might
have been the effect of such plea is
not before us, but its efficiency may
be well questioned in view of the pri-
waite laws of 1899 < :
'''rhe contention Of the defendants
were ably presented, but do not seem
to us to touch the real point at issue.
They are best recited in the words of
the defendant: The defendants con-
tend that the Commission possesses
no power in regard to regulating
freight charges except such as are con-
ferred on it by this act: and that the
circular prescribing the minimum car
load was ultra vires., an unwarranted
and arbitrary invasion of the rights
of the defendant to conduct and man
age their own manner of conducting
business. . If the Commission
has the right to order that ten tons
shall be the minimum, it has the right
TO order that one ton shall be the
minimum = < AS well concede
that the Commission direct the
weight Of rail to be used. whether it
be of iron or steel and whether the
locomotives shall be fast or slow
This contention seems based upon
an entire misunderstanding of the ac-
ton of the commission. 1t assumes
when the Commission ordered that