The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-20

quife the running OF an extra tram.
The mere fact that through passengers
from the North TO Florida have the
choice Of three or more through
routes, varying but little in time and
comfort. is no excuse for an unjust
discrimination against that part of the
travelling public who are dependent
upon local lines. This idea was evil
IDENTIFY in the mind of this court when,
speaking by Rodman, j.. in Branch
v Wilmington 4 Weldon Railroad
Company, II n. c., BAT, upon the ne
cessity for the imposition of penalties,
it says on page $50: 1.-The Legislature
considered the common Jaw liability as
insufficient TO compel the performance
Of the public duty. 1t must have
thought that the interest of local
shippers, for whose interest principally
the road was built. and against whom
the company had complete monop-
OH. we're being sacrificed by wanton
delays of carriage in order that the
company might obtain the carriage
from points where there were COM
peting lines by land or water; as from
Wilmington or Au~usta. The fact
that the defendant in that case WIS
the parent of the present defendant
may lend additional significance TO the
words of the court.
In this view the profits of the road,
both for the present and the immedi-
ate past. would become material. Sup
nose the witness had answered that no
dividend had been paid for years, ana
that the company was unable to earn
ANYTHING beyond bare expenses,
whereby the stock was almost unmar-
ketable, would it not have been COM
petent as tending to prove the defend
ants contention that it is unreasonable
to demand of it any additional SER
vice? On the contrary. suppose the
witness had testified as follows: That
on one share of the par value OF one
hundred dollars i'll the Wilmington d
Weldon Railroad Company. the foI-
lowing stock dividends or bonuses had
been issued in addition to large annual
dividends that in 1897 the said rail-
road company had issued upon this
one share of stock as bonus a GER
tificate of indebtedness in the sum OF
one hundred dollars bearing seven
ner cent interest; that in 1900 there
was issued, in lieu OF this one share
of stock, two shares of one hundred
dollars each of preferred stock in the
Atlantic Coast Line Company and two
shares of one hundred dollars each or
common stock in the Atlantic Coast
Line Company; that in 1897 there was
also issued to the holder OF the one
original share of stock four shares OF
the Atlantic Coast Line Companv or
each, and in 1900 a certificate of IN
debtedness of the Atlantic Coast Line
Company of Connecticut for four
hundred dollars; that all of said
stock and certificates of Indebtedness
were much above par in value and
receiving handsome dividends; that re-
Gently a dividend of twenty-five pei
cent had been declared; and that the
one original share in the Wilmington
& Weldon Railroad Company had
thus developed into thirteen shares of
stock and certificates of indebtedness
of the par value of thirteen hundred
dollars, but of the real value or
about twenty-five hundred dollars.
Suppose it had been further shown
that little over thirty years ago the
States half interest in the Wilmington
& Weldon Railroad Company had
been bought for thirty-five dollars q
share. Suppose further that it were
shown that a large part of the alleged
Indebtedness of the company were
certificates of Indebtedness issued to
the stockholders without any consid-
Grafton whatever other than the
mere capitalization of profits
Would not this evidence have been
competent to prove that the order of
the Corporation Commission. reaulr-
ing the defendant to quicken its regu-
lar train twenty-five minutes in order
10 make connection at S0lllld, WAS not
unreasonabl and not taking its
property without due process of law,
and in violation of the Constitution
Of the United States? would not such
evidence also tend to prove that it
would not be unreasonable to require
the defendant to make such connec-
ton even if it did require an extra
train at loss of fifteen dollars per
day. if other trains running on the
mo linz of J.1y he "a
places more than made up the differ
ence?
These are hypothetical answers on
both sides. Where the truth may be,
was peculiarly within the knowledge
of the defendant upon whose obJec-
ton ii was excluded. 1t cannot be
commended that such an investigation
would be an impertinent inquiSition
into private affairs, as property taken
for a public purpose under the power
of eminent domain, is indeliby inn
pressed with a public use. This has
been too often decided by the Su-
preme Court of the United States to
be any longer an open question. Two
cases will be sufficient for my pur-
pose. Ia Chicago. Etc. Ry. Co. VS..
Wellman, l43 =. s., 339, the court
says on page 345: IA single sugges-
ton in this direction: 1t is agreed
that the defeadantS operating ex-
penseS for 1883 were $2,404, 516.54
OF what do these operating expenses
consist? Are they made up
partially of eXtravagant salaries; fifty
to one hundred thousand dollars to
the president, ana in like proportion to
subordinate officers? Surely, before the
courts are called upon to adjudge All
act of the Legislature fixing the
maximum passenger rates for railroad
companies to be unconstitutional, on
the ground that its enforcement would
prevent the stockholders from receiy-
ing any dividends on their investments,
or the bondholders any interest on
their loans, they should be fully ad-
vised as to what is done with the re-
ceipts and earnings of the company;
for if SO advised, it might clearly APP
pear that "A prudent and honest man
agement would, within the rates pre-
Scribed, secure TO the bondholderS
their interest, and to the stockholders
reasonable dividends. While the pro-
lection of vested rights of property IS
a supreme duty of the courts it has
not come to this that the legislative
power rests subservient to the discre-
ton of any railroad corporation which
may, by eXorbitant and unrea sonabie
salaries, or in some other improper
way transfer its earnings into what