Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1902-12-23

Bsst Yirginian Cath Attention 70 Important
FACTS.


Cumberland. is due, as conceded by everyone.
% the failure Of the company to furnish sufii-
cient cars and engines TO those engaged in
mining coal in the Cumberland coal region.
it has been more than once stated in The
Sun that there are now standing on the tracks
Of the West Virginia Central. at Cumberland,
some COO cars ready TO be hauled East over
this line. which fail to more because this COM
pauy refuses to furnish the necessary engines. |
The operators everywhere in this region, on
both sides OF the Potomac, stand willing and
anxious to furnish the coal at prices higher
than ever known before, but this company re-
fuses to furnish the necessary cars. With a
haul from Cumberland or Frostburg of from
two to five hours through West Virginia and
of about nine hours to Baltimore, the
people along the line Ia West Virginia, Mary
land and in Baltimore are suffering, many of
them because the coal cannot be had at any
price 1t is almost case of "water all
around, yet not drop to drink"
The company, as we understand, attempts to
justify itself for bringing about this famine by
pleading that it had entered into contracts
months before this coal trouble had CON-
menced with certain parties in Philadelphia
and north of Baltimore to supply them with
coal, and that they are bound to protect these
contracts that to do this requires So many of
its cars and engines that it is thereby unable
to furnish the customary amount of transpor-
tation along its line in West Virginia and in
Maryland. Regardless of its obligations
under the laws of both States, it undertakes
for itself to determine who shall have coal aud
who shall not.
pany, or will it be permitted to, assume the
sovereign powers of these States in the
management and control of its road Certain
obligations are imposed upon it by the COM
mon law, by statutes, and. in West Vir ginia,
by its Constitution.
Under the common law they are common
carriers. The Changers cases Ca, y. s., 1855
1877; r. R. Co. VS.. Transportation Co. (35 W.
Va, 324). The textbooks all agree snbstan-
TALLY in their d, fipition as to the duties of q
common carrier. We cite for example A.
and f. Encyclopedia of Law, volume 2, page
to receive and carry all the goods offered for
transportation, subject to the responsibilities
incident to his employment, and is liable for
his refusal" There are exceptions to the rule
not necessary to note because inapplicable
here.
8 The very definition of common carrier
excludes the right TO grant monopoly, or to
give special or unequal preference. II i'm
plies Indifference as to whom they may serve,
and an equal readiness TO serve all who may
apply in the. order of their application
Idem, 100.
6 ned at common law it is liable in damages
to any shipper. But the trouble is, the ship
ers, with few exceptions, are not those who
burn the coal, lat the dealers who supply the
consumer. These dealers would regard it as
little short of treason to the sovereign, the
railroad company, 10 sue it for damages, for
they believe that the company would retaliate
with such discrimination as would destroy
their business. The dealers, therefore, never
sue and the consumer is rot likely to- for his
suit would be for the public good more than
his own, and because the cost OF prosecuting
would be far more than the amount recovered
There is no remedy By private suit. The only
remedy is action by the State.
The company has no right by contracts to
bind its If to ship TO comparatively few Of
rs customers, whether inside or outside of the
State, were chartered, such quantity of coal
as reuniros an nnIua Yro,ortion of ira eouin
ment Such contracts we believe to be dis
elimination and breach of its duty to the
general public, who are entitled to the use oil
the road.
Such contracts, unless there is correspond
ing increase in the means OF transportation
could not be inforced. They are against pub
lie policy, being based upon discr Elimination in
favor Of the sh PIPER.
The State alone If competant to furnish the
remedy for such discrimination, and it is its
imperative duty 10 protect its people against
| it Things are bad enough now, but much
blacker cloud looms over the future. A quick
re mcdy is demanded. The courts can't fur
nish it. The Legislature must.
This railroad is public highway created
by the Legislatures of W,st Virginia and
Maryland for the nse and good of the public.
The road never could have been made other
WISE All the constitutions of all the States
forbid the taking of private property for q
private use; the roadLed can only De con-
demned for public Use, and thus taken for a
public use the road becomes public highway.
The " est Virginia Constitution and statutes
SO declare it. The Supreme Court Of West
Virginia has SO held Or. K. Co. VS., Transpor-
ration Co., Is ". Va, 324
The West Virginia Code. chapter 100, Sec
tions 6, aud {. provides for forfeiture o.
charter for misuse, by proceedings in the ma
ture of quo warranto, to be instituted either
By the Attorney-G ueral OF the State or the
attorney for the State in any county.
The Constitution of West Virginia provides
rticle XI. Section 8, that the Legislature
shall have power to establish reasonable rates
Of charges, to correct abuses and to prevent
unjust discrimination, and further provides
(Scction 10 of same article) for the taking
possession ly the Legielai ure of the property
and franchises Of the railroad, and subject
ing them to the public use"
The proceedings by quo warranto or by in
formation to be instituted by the attorneys for
the State has for its object forfeiture. This
is q remedy 80 harsh that it is not likely 10 be
resorted to. II successful the State would get
the road without compensation to the ccrh-
pany. We doubt whether the Legislature un-
der the provisions of Section r. Article~XI
without process of law, could take poss, ssion
of the property of the company and subject it
to tie public use,
Two Of the judges i'll the Changers cases
cited above dissented from the majority of
the court, on the ground that law reducing
the rates of transportation was taking prop
erty without due process of law.
The Legislature of West Virginia meets in
January next Virginia in her recent con-
yentions has provided commission for con-
sidering and determining all these questions.
The ire xments of this commission when