The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-01-23
Union Depot Bill Passed
Second Reading.
CONTINUED from First Page.)

mend for their very existence, if not the
people? 1t is necessary to have power
like this lodged somewhere.
LAS to the large cities not having
union depots, Boston has a union depot
on the north side of the street. and one
on the south side, for the convenience of
the public, and those stations were estab-
lished by permission of the government
of the State. Congress has just passed
a bill for the establishment of a union
depot, even giving the right to tunnel
under the Capitol. Atlanta has a union
depot, and Raleigh has one.
This is no attempt to Cypress any cor
poration. / have confidence in our Cor
poration Commission. 1t is composed oil
just, discreet learned able men. Their
record shows they do not want to be un-
just to any corporation. There has been
no objection to their judgments, and
that shows our wisdom in giving them
the power we have"
Judge Graham also touched upon the
injustice of keeping the people of Dur
ham waiting for relief from their in
tolerable situation until the law suit is
terminated.
He concluded by saying it was shown
that We had the right to compel the
building of union depot and that it was
constitutional to delegate that right, be-
cause the Legislature could not be eX-
pected to investigate every case OF the
kind that might come up.
General Davidson then took the floor.
He said he was in sympathy with the
general object of the bill. There was
possibly one objection in the form of the
bill 1t lay, he said, in the difference be-
tween regulating and legislating. The
bill seems to confer legislative power
instead of a regulating one. He had
some apprehension that this might be as
sailed if it ever came before the courts.
II shall support the BILL said he, when
it is in proper form, and it may be in
proper form now"
Judge Graham: 81 do not think that
any legislative powers are delegated
The Commission could execute their de-
cisions according to the rights givei
them by the law of 1899. 1t seems to me
that is already provided for
Mr. Morton said that the gentleman
from Buncombe had expressed his owr
opinion. The act of '99 is direct legisla
ton, and the duties of the commission
there are entirely ministerial. But il
this bill we are comforting upon thu
commission legislative powers. In al
the cases cited just now it was legisla
tion directly"
Judge Graham: 1.-THE gentleman is mis-
taken The only one in which there wa
direct legislation was the Worceste
case"
7 IN
your attention to the fact that the onl,
case relating to a union depot was tn
one at Worcester. and that was a direc
act of the legislature
Mr.. Smith: "Will you tell the differ
ence in principle between the act of g!
and the power to be conferred by thi:
billy"
Mr.. Morton: THE act of % made rail-
roads and corporations amenable tc
the citizens and said specifically that
the commission should regulate rates
etc. That was specific law. In this
bill there is no statute saying that al
every junction there shall be a union
depot
Mr. Smith: What is the difference in
principle between compelling railroad
TO build station and compelling several
to build union station?"
Mr.. Morton: "In our statute you are
the controlling power of one railroad
alone, but here you confer this power
You are giving an individual body power
to destroy the property of some corpora
ton"
Mr.. Fuller: 81 am unable to see the
distinction the gentleman from New Han
oft
the Legislature has the power to com
pei a railroad to build a station, how it
changes the status of the act to compel
two or more railroads to build a union
depot. Does that change a legislative
to ministerial act?'
Mr.. Morton: There is a law saying
that one station may be demanded but
there is none saying that a union depot
can be required
Mr.. Fuller: But 1 have a bill here
that will make it a law"
Mr.. Morton: but your bill does not
do that. 1t simply gives the power to
another body to require it,
Mr.. Fuller: 81 must differ with the
gentleman. The bill does exactly as the
act of 49,.
involved in the bill is entirely wrong. I
think the advocates of it have come ask
ing a general statute to right a local
wrong. / asked one of the gentlemen ad-
vocating the bill if it was not for the
special relief of Durham. He said it
was. Now 1 would be perfectly willing
to do anything for Durham. The argu-
ment in favor of the bill before the COM
mittee relied on the Worcester case, but
there it was a direct act of the Legisla-
ture. We should not confer that power,
but retain it in the General Assembly
Mr.. Smith: 1.-The question seems to be
narrowed down to one of whether the
power of compelling can or cannot be
granted by legislative act. 1t seems to
me that the argument of the gentleman
from New Hanover and the gentleman
from Rowan comes too late. The power
vested in the Railroad Commission is
already conferred by the act of '99. If
that act does not confer legislative pow
err. then this act does not.
'In the large cities the fact that there
are stations on different streets is for
the very reason this bill is introduced for
the accommodation of the public. 1t
seems TO be admitted that the bill should
be passed to accommodate a certain