The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-08
Mr.. Junius Davis.

commenced.
Mr.. Junius Davis.
Mr.. Junius Davis, of Wilmington,
attorney for the Atlantic Coast Line,
first addressed the court, and moved
for judgment under the verdict, or if
that should not be entered, for the
verdict to be set aside. These mo-
tons were made, said Mr.. Davis first
because the plaintiff, the Corporation
Commission, had not the power to
compel the defendant railroad to put
on an additional train. In the first
place there was no common law au-
thoIity whatever for it. Every rail-
road corporation had the right at
common law to regulate the running
of its own trains. In this connec-
ton he cited section 1857 of the Code.
Moreover the Legislature of 1898 had
said the only necessity was one pas
senger train daily on each line stop
ping at local stations. That was all
that the State required. 1t was adj
mitted that the Atlantic Coast Line
had this on its Selma line.
Mr.. Davis contended that the act
of 1891 in section 81 did not refer to
the interchange of passengers be-
tween two roads. but to the physical
connection of two lines when they
converged. The act did not contem-
plate the arrangement of schedules.
He cited 10th L. s., D. 667 in which
it was held that the requirements as
to connection of lines referred only
to the mechanical connection of the
tracks and not to the interchange of
business. This was all that the con-
stItution Of Colorado required, and
all that the acts required of the Atchi-
son, Topeka and Santa ~F'e. Second,
J.. Il. a.. D. 321, was also cited. There
also it was held that a requirement
as to connecting lines referred only
to a physical connection of tracks.
The act does not say connecting
trains, but connecting lines. 1t
means that if two roads come to-
gether, the two depots shall be as
near together as possible.
Mr. Davis said moreover that the
laws OF this State and the United
states did not compel a railroad to
perform service without remunera-
ton. If this verdict was carried out,
the road would lose So a day. The
question was not whether the road
could afford it, but whether the SER
vice of the road at that particular
point was compensatory. Moreover,
this was not the establishment of any
service for the benefit of the State,
but merely a. train picked up at Rocky
Mount and run to Selma, to serve only
the people travelling between those
points. In Becker against Railroad
Company in 35th Federal Reporter
a bill for an injunction against the
Railroad Commission Of Minnesota,
which had put on q schedule of
switching rates that was unremunera
tive to the company. The opinion
was by Judge Brewer, who said that
it was not within the power of the
Commission to require q railroad to
carry persons or property at a loss.
Mr.. Davis also claimed that the cele-
brated case of Smythe against Ames
167th N. c., sustained practically the
same point. You can't punish one
kind of service OF a railroad company
for the benefit of another. In Smith
against Railroad Company 193rd U.
S., the Commission of one of the
eastern States had made an order
compelling the railroads to put on a
family mileage ticket. There also the
court held that the question was
whether or not that particular service
was remunerative.
AS to The Louisiana case in the 33rd
Southern Reporter, cited by the At
torney General, where the court had
held that in establishing Il station it
was only necessary to show that the
entire service in the State could afford
it, Mr.. Davis said he could only cite
against that the law of 1891 of our
own Legislature, which said as to that
Point, ''if it is demonstrated that the
revenue is sufficient to justify it," SO
no matter what the Louisiana court
says, our own Legislature says other
wise in it's law.
The Attorney General.
Attorney General Gilmer for the
CONTINUED on Page Fourteen.)