The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-01-27

| bin. 1t lay. he said. in the difference be-
tween regulating and IegisIating. The
| bill seems to confer a legislative power
instead OF a regulating one. lie had
some apprehension that this might be as
sailed II il ever anne before the courts.
Il shall support the bill, said he, when
it is in proper form. and it may DE in
| rop form now
Judge Graham: II do not think that
any legislative powers are delegated.
The Commission could execute their de-
cisions according to the rights given
them by the law of 1893. It seems TO me
that IS already provided for"
Mr.. Morton said that the gentleman
from Buncombe had expressed his own
opinion. The act of 80 is direct legisla-
ton, and the duties Of the commission
there are entirely ministerial. But in
this bill we are conferrIng upon the
commission legislative powers. In all
the cases cited just now it was legisla-
ton directly"
Judge Graham: The gentleman IS mis-
taken. The only one in which there was
direct legislation was the Worcester
| case"
Mr.. Norton: Yes, and I want to call
your attention to the fact that the only
case relating to a unioI. DEPOT was the
one at Worcester. and that was a direct
act of the Legislature
Mr.. Smith: ''Will You tell the differ
ence in principle between the act of 80
and the power to ,be conferred by this
b:l?"
MIR. Morton; The act of % made rail
roads and corporations amenable to
the citizens and said specifically that
the commission should regulate rates,
etc. That was a specific law. In this
bill there is no statute saying that at
every junction there shall be a union
depot
Mr.. Smith: "What is the difference in
principle between compelling a railroad
to build a station and compelling several
to build a union s%tation?"
Mr.. Norton: "In our statute you arc
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
over attempts to draw. | cannot see, if
the Legislature has the power to com
4 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 q ministerial act?'
Mr.. Morton: There is a law saying
that one station may be demanded. but
there is none saving that a union depot
can be required
Mr.. Fuller: But / have a bill here
that Will make it a law"
Mr.. Morton: but your bill does not
do that. It simply gives the power to
another body to require it
Mr.. Fuller: 7 must differ with the
gentleman. The bill does exactly as the
act of go
Mr.. Murphey: L think the principle
involved in the bill is entirely WrOng. ]
think the advocates of it have come ask
ing a general statute to right a local
wrong. | asked one of the gentlemen adj
vocating the bill if it was not for the
special relief of Durham. He said il
was. Now I 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-
turc. We should not confer that power.
but retain it in the General Assembly,
Mr.. Smith: THE question seems to be
Adi Cd donh ~ OuC u whether luS
power of compelling can or cannot be
granted by a legislative act. It seems tc
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 80. If
that act does not confer legislative pow
or, then this act does not.
sETp tho u 80 oi+;o- +bo roa+ +La4 -.
are stations on different streets is for
the very reason this bill is introduced, fol
the accommodation of the public. It
seems to be admitted that the bill should
be passed to accommodate a certain
place. Why not for any and every place:
| can see the distinction drawn. but it
is only a distinction. and not a differ
enco."
Mr.. White. of Halifax: eff I under
stand anything of the act of '99. it was
for just this thing, to establish facilities
for the public. The Legislature is only
in session every two years, and the peo-
pie could not come I'D here for every
thing Of this kind that they needed. The
reason for the establishment of the Cor
poration Commission was that they might
look after individual cases Of this kind
I would not vote to give ony one city
privileges that another atty could not
get unless they came up here in two
years from now. If the commission has
power in the case of one railroad, why
not in more than one?"
At this juncture Mr.. Fuller called for
the question, but yielded to Mr.. Parker
Of Wayne.
Mr., Parker: Il respect the rights Of
railroads and all corporations. | wish
it We're possible that we could enac!
some law to invite and out
sid capital TO come into the State, anG
| am not unmindful of the advantages
Of having railroads. But, sir, the rail
roads have not been restricted or taxed
out of existence. They have grown
wealthy and powerful. AS a member q
the committee l voted for that bill.
recognized that the people have a right
to control thc common carriers. For that
reason they established the Corporation
Commission, and gave it the power tC
establish stations wherever needed. Now
there might come a time when necessity