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

court is that the order will not'Be de-
clared unreasonable unless il violates
the amendment to the Constitution of
the United States forhiddinE the de-
privatlon of property without due
| process Of law.
MI. .Janics II. FOu.
Mr. James II. Pou quoted the 35th
Federal Reporter 881, where Chief
Justice Brewer said that robbing
Peter TO pay Paul had never yet re-
ceived judicial sanction. He said the
Attorney General forgot that England
had no written constitution, and
therefore, the acts of Parliament had
all the force of the sections OF our
Constitution. The Legislature, Mr..
Pou declared, never had the remotest
idea of doing what is now contended
for. An examination Of the scheme
Of that act shows that the powers Of
Che Commission were al set forth in
section one, and the rest OF the act
is merely how those powers shall be
exercised. Section 81 the one in
question, was merely to guard against
undue discrimination of one road
against another. Only q physical,
connection of lines and depots was
meant. y connection OF schedules
was never dreamt Of by the Lcgisla-
ture. If this section had the power
contended for it. then there was no
need for the passage of the Fuller
depot bill. The power of arranging
running schedules was one of the
powers the Legislature had conferred
upon railroad corporations. as shown
by section 1857 of the Code. That
power has not been taken away, di-
reCtly or by implication. Such power
as the Corporation Commission has
attempted to use here has never been
given it by any authority in the
books.
The contention OF the Atlantic
Coast Line was. said Mr.. Pou. that all
the authority was in favor OF the
necessity OF each rate being sclf-re-
mlmeratiVe. 1t was an open QueS-
ton whether or not the line of cases
cited by the Attorney General had
been oVerrUled No case is found
since Mum against Illinois that does
not hold that the test of every service
is the profit of such service itself
OF course the roads must perform
some service, loss or profit; they must
run at least one train or two a day
PEELED to put on more trains except
at q profit. A statute was passed in
New York and attempted to be en-
forced against the Long Island Rail-
road, compelling them to run trains
for the convenience of passengers be-
tween local St01lGiS. 1t was held
that the court erred in ordering a
mandamus, and that the manner of
transportation of passengers was not
for the commission to say. That
case was in 31st Hun, Supreme Court
of New York.
Hon L. A Woodland.
Hon f. A. Woodland, of Wilson, for
the State, followed Mr. Pou. He
cited Wisconsin against Jacobson,
18TH L. s.. opinion by Judge Peck
ham, showing that the regulation of
railroads, as if public highways, was
one Of the functions of government.
On the same line he quoted Judge
Bradley's dissenting opinion in the
134th, %. 1914. The only modification
of Mum against Illinois was that
what was reasonable was not legis-
lative but judicial question. The
power is still in the Legislature to
regulate railroads, their rates and so
forth Mr. Woodland cited several
cases decided since the case of Mum
against Illinois, in which the same
question was decided in the same
way. The state has a right to adopt
such regulations as are necessary To
compel the railroad companies to
transport passengers with the greatest
expedition and dispatch. The Legis-
Iature could pass any regulation pro-
vided it permitted the railroad COM
pany to earn a small dividend. no
matter how small That was the only
condition, according to the authorizes.