The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-29
For the Public Not Stock
holders.
Continued from Page One.)


day. Gen. Gilmer said he believed
his observations would tend to eXpe-
dite matters. Judge Brown said he
was very sorry he had not offered
them before.
Gen. Gilmer assumed that the prac-
ticability had been proved of putting
on this new train, and that only the
question of the reasonableneSs was
left. Would the establishment of this
train amount to deprivation of prop
erty without due process of law. AS
being on all tours with this case, the
/ Attorney General quoted the 116th
Illinois, p. s512. IN Illinois they
| have a Railroad Commission, as we
| here. This case was a petition to the
Railroad Commissioners from citizens
| along the line of the st. Louis, Eel Do
| dorado & Terre Haute Railroad, ask
| ing for a passenger train in order to
make a certain connection. The road
| there contended that the earning ca
| pacity of the train would not JUSTIFY
| its operation. The Supreme Court OF
Illinois was of opinion that the whole
revenue from the entire line should be
taken into consideration. The inter-
ests Of the stockholders of q railroad,
said that court, were of secondary i'm
portance. and subsidiary to the rights
of the travelling public.
In Louisiana l902, 33rd Southern
I, -. 4, Il
which the jurisdiction of Railroad
Commission was defined, holding it to
be an administrative body, created to
carry out the will of the people as eX-
pressed by the Legislature. But our
| Commission had been defined as also
a judicial body by the Supreme Court
! in the 111th report, Railroad against
| Express Company.
In the Louisiana case the question
| involved was the insuffciency of q
| station. The Chief Justice said there
| that regard was to be had to the abil-
| ity of the entire railroad to establish
| the station, and not it's ability at any
one particular point. In our case we
| were not limited to the earning Capac-
! ity of that special train, but of the en-
! tire road. The Louisiana court had
said that the road should, out of the
surplus Of the revenue, eStab-
| lish that station, and now, out of
| the profits of the Atlantic Coast Line
it should run that proposed train. In
| the great question of settling rates, it
| had long since been established that
| the Commission could establish the
rates. and the doctrine was that they
should see to it that the rates We're
such as did not deprive the company
from earning a profit on its invest
ment.
Judge Brown excluded the testimo-
| ny regarding the revenue derived
| from the sale of tickets at particular
points, but said he would hear argu-
ment on the proposition to offer in eV-
idence the net earnings of the rail-
road.
Colonel Argo, continuing the ex-
animation of Mr.. Emerson, asked
how many miles in the en-
tire system. About 1900. How
many in North Carolina? Witness
| 81 "a -
ings in North Carolina for year from
passenger traffic? He could not say.
| The court would not allow this evil
dence to be introduced by way of
cross examination. 1t could be offer
ed in the regular way, and would be
passed upon. Witness could not tell
net earnings of the entire road.
Would the net earnings of the entire
road in North Carolina justify the es-
tablishment of the new train without
interfering with the rates now fixed
or dividends now being paid? Exciud-
ed till argument of defendant could
be heard on that point, which was
the matter argued by the Attorney
General
Then the jury was allowed to go
until three o'clock, pending argument.
Mr. Pou.
Mr.. Pou said the contention of the
/
fore the State and Government had
assumed the power of fixing rates. 1t
| was now a well established fact that
any rate was unjust where that rate
did not pay for itself. There was one
| exception to that, when q road was
| given eminent domain and required to
| perform certain duties. The Supreme
! Court of the United States in Smyth
against Haynes, from Nebraska, had
held that one service cannot be estab-
| lished at the cost of that service, in
volving other branches of the service.
In the cases cited by the Attorney
General, Mr.. Pou said. the charter OF
| that road required certain passenger
| and freight service, and the court
moreover held that one passenger car
was sufficient. That same court in
another case had said that it was no
where permissible to compel railroad
| to increase the number of it's trains,
unless certain service was required in
| the charter.
AS to its being practicable, that
meant with profit in the manner of
doing business. Several Federal au-
thortieS showed this among them
Black in the Thigpen case from Edge
combe. The steamboats, on the Mis-
sissippi were absolved from carrying
petroleum oil because 1t could be car
ried with profit on the freight trains.
This was not a complaint of any
service on the \. G. L., but COM
plant that it does not conform it's ser
vice to that of. another road. Not
a single witness had complained OF
the service of the Coast Line.
The North Carolina court by infer
ence had held that one passenger train
day was sufficient. AS q matter OF
fact this order of the Commission re-
CURED the Atlantic Coast Line to an
null some of their trains in order that
the Southern might get it's passengers
to Greensboro.
Judge Brown thought it would be
advisable to admit the evidence as
TO net earnings-the counsel for the
road consented that it be admitted.
That Of course terminated the discus
sion and recess was taken till hal
past two.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. Emerson resumed the stand af
ter recess; Colonel ArgO asked if the
road had declared any dividends for
1903. Witness did not know of his
own knowledge. Did he know by the
records of the company? Excluded.
Would a reasonably certain connection
at Selma be a great convenience to