The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-07
DECISION OF SIMuNTON
He Finds That Present Rates Are Not
Unreas enable.
COMMISSION FIXES MINIMUM CAR LOAD
Exceptions to the Report Of Standing Master
Martin on This Case Argued by Coui.
sci at Charleston Last Week Be-
fore Judge Simonton.

JuuSe OlmOHtOH mas ueClueu the leltlit-
ger rate case in favor of the Corporation
Commission. The decision was announced
yesterday and the judges opinion in. the
matter fills eight pages of typewriter
manuscript. 1t was received at the office
of the clerk of the Federal Court yes
tcrday. The decision over-rules the ex-
ceptions to the report Of Standing Master
Martin, and confirming the same
= The opinion is in part as follows:
This case comes up on the report of
the Special Master and exceptions
thereto.
The North Carolina Corporation Com
mission, the successor to, or more
properly the substitute for the Board
of Railroad Commissioners established
in 1891, exercising the powers confer
red upon it by the Legislature, has pre-
scribed certain rates for the carriage
of passengers and freight for all the
railroads of the State. The Railroad
Commission recognizing the difficulties
under which the Carolina Central Rail
way Company was Iaboring, had au-
thorized it to add thirty per cent in
crease to the standard rates. This con-
cession has been continued by the Cor
poration Commission with the single
exception of rates of fertilizers.
The questions made in this
case are Federal questions and grow
out of the Fourteenth Amendment. If
the rates fixed are unreasonable that
is to say if. they compel the railway
company to conduct it's operations al a
loss or without IA fair remuneration for
its investment. then the property of
the Company isstaken and used by the
public without just compensation. And
1T is deprived OF its property without
due process of law.
The law applica bic to this
case has keen settled by. a. series of
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. One Of the latest of
these decisions. Smyth VS.. Ames, 169
L. S. 467, announces the doctrine: "A
railroad is public highway and none
the less so because constructed and
maintained through the agency of
corporation deriving it's existence and
powers from the State. Such a corpo-
ration was created for public purposes.
1t performs the function of the State.
Its authority to exercise the right of
eminent domain and to charge tolls was
given primarily for the benefit of the
public. 1t is therefore under govern
mental control. Subject of course to
the constitutional guarantee for the
protection of property. 1t may not fix
its rates solely with a view to its own
interests and ignore the rights of the
public. But the rights of the public
would be ignored If rates for transpor-
tatiOn Of persons or property on rail-
road were eXacted without reference
TO fair value of the property used for
the public or of the services rendered
and in order simply that the corpora
ton may meet it's operating expenses
pay interest on its bonds and declare
dividends TO its stockholders"
On the other hand the public cannot
require the corporation to use its plant
its money and its credit without re-
enumeration. = The best inter
ests Of the public forbid this. Rail-
roads are the arteries Of trade. Through
them flows the life-blood of a commu-
nifty. The best craftsmanship contri-
butte to their maintenance and encour-
age their prosperity.
1t is said however. that the
regulation fixing the minimum car load
at ten tons is unreasonable. This regu-
lation applies to all the railroads in the
State, and it was in existence for many
years. For a year or two it was raised
to fifteen tons and now has been re-
stored. 1t is said that this is a dis
elimination against those who ship
less than ten tons and in favor of the
large consumers. But the complaint is
not against the fixing Of the limit for
4. -
tons. The Commission was of opinion
that some limit should be fixed. The
acquiescence of the vast majority of
the railroad companies would seem to
show that this in itself was not un-
reasonable. If the minimum rate had
10 be fixed at some point, there would
of necessity be some discrimination of
the kind suggested. Were 1t fixed at
fifteen tons; all those who ship lass
than fifteen tons would be at dis
advantage Naturally their number
would be greater than if the minimum
was ten tons. And still greater if it
was at tewtny tons.
The reasoning and conclusions of the
Special Master are perfectly satisfacto-
~. The exceptions are overruled and
the report is confirmed
The title of the case is Virginia B. MAJ
fnews against the Corporation Commits
sion and others.
The ease was brought by the Seaboard
AR Line Railway. The Corporation Com
mission issued circular establishing
rate for the transportation of fertilizer,
ana liking 10 tons as the minimum ear
ioad II also granted the right to the
Carolina Central Railway Company TO
charge thirty per cent in addition TO the
standard rates.
The railroads brought suit alleging in
their complaint that the rates were I'M
reasonably low, and compelled the rail-
way company TO conduct it's operations at
a loss and without fair recommendations.
They also claimed that tho minimum car
load OF 10 tons was unreasonable and dis