The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-03-25
COMMISSION
SUSTAINED.
Decision 81 &. tic Supreme Court Court
of4Appcals Upholds Rules Of
Corporation, G Commission.
CB9
CASE
stlfl ~,
1D,'IlE||::::..MIuR!RA'IG:iE:.
Tie Judges Of the Highest Court
III the State Unanimous i'll
the Opinion.

|igStS At
Tho Supreme Court Of Appeals handed
down four opinions yesterday, one of
which was OF far reaching Importance,
being tile unanimous opinion Of Tho court.
lii tho case OF the Atlantic Coast Line
Railway Company md others vs.. tho
Commonwealth, OF Virginia.
Perhaps no case tina has reached the
eupreme Court Of Appeals IN recent years
hns attracted as mich attention rs this
one and It Is probable that none has
been better understood by the public
generally. ~ III b Ii Y is III.
Ii: brief the suit upon whichsthls case
reaches the Supreme Court. is II one
brought by the lending railways doing
business IN Virginia, to test the con-
stitutionality Of iile laws prG'itllng for
the establishing and operation Of tho
State Corporation Commission OF vi1--$
ginla, a body with great powers N y r.
glnia. created By the Constitutional Con.
vention, and that has already worked
and is still working something Of q rev.
oution among corporations III TINS o1h l'''
The Contention.
The main contention OF the railways
| Is that the constitutional provisions ere
ntlng the commission and giving It power
| arc In violation Of The letter and spirit
| or the Constitution Of tho United states
and that the rules made BY the COM
mission for the legal guidance anu 3.lot
| +ht, &ra tlngs and proratIlRs of the treiEnt
| and passenger departments Of tie railways
arc in violation 90 the laws Of CONGRESS re,
NJ rtaininE to interstnt O comm cree. # I ny
case is Known In common paris nee q mo y
|f,'Dernurrage Case. sf ri y,
The opinion. which was "rltten ~
SJ,ldra John a. buchanan and concurrcd
nv Ali the judsts, sustans the Cor
| marathon Commission In all particulars.
| 3i1t N lengthy aud very Interesting iega.
| document, covering thirty pages OF les'ttls
cap, closely type written
1@EIt ia an exhausted review OF the con-
stitutional enactment creating the COM
mission and the laws made by the A.egis-
lature to carry out the purposes OF INC
| Constitutional Convent ion a nd 54jo OF Inc
laws Of Congress that bear upon Tie
noneral subject and concludes rs fol-
lows .' #
."Thero being no objection made
here to the reasonabeness or business
Of the rules and regulations in a1es-
| ton and their validity being attack
| Cd ONLY to the extent Of their april
cation to Interstate and foreign com
,nerce. and a in 50 far as they may
deprive the appellants Of the use OF
their property without due process If
Of law, we are, therefore, OF Z
opinion that the said rules and regu-
lntons are reasona-.e, Just and Va lt'
| i5 cxcept in 50 far as they may In their
operation directly entrencl, upon the 4
| commerce clallse Of the Constitution
OF the United States or violate some
! right of the appellants protected by
| that instrument. NJ sS} 5laGy 2 \
| $"And we are further OF the opinion
that the question OF their validity, 80 II
far MS affected by; the Constitution OF
tho United States. may be raised anu
determined in any case in which that j
question could be raised and deter
| mined, II the rules and regulations IN
question had been enacted as statutes
by the General Assembly. except AS
| prohibited by subsection s Of sec
ton 1856 Of the Constitution"
Lynchburg Case.
Judge George NJ. Morrison wrote the
opinion OF the court in the case of Lynch
burg cotton mills vs.. Stanley, etc. The
case came up on an appeal from the
Circuit cI Court OF Lynchburg and the de-.
cison firms the rulings Of the lower
court.
Iitzhugh Stanley, an employe of the
Iynchburg cottonmils. was injured while
at work for tile company. In the trial Of
the case he was given a!5verdict OF 5000,
and from. this the company appealed,
| The court In Its opinion held that tho
evidence substantntetl the charge of neg
ligence on the part Of the company, that
an infant between the ages Of seven and,
fourteen cannot, In law, be guilty of.
contributory negligence. The boy was
injured while playing with a belt on n
rapidly revolving puley-an act the men
in charge did not prevent, or try to pre-
vent Tho verdict was affirmed In every
particular. .st a
A Will Case.
In the case Of Gaddess and others VS..
Norris's executors, and others which
came up on an appeal from the Circuit
Court of Fauquicr county Judge Tefford
CT 3NVhIttle. prepared the opinion. t was
a case In which the construction of q
will was the point 1T issue h and the
rulings of the lower court We're found to
be erroneous. the decree entered was re-
vcrsed and the cause manded for fur
Their proceedings to be had therein In
accordance with this opinion,
The; court finds that there were grand
| children Of the stcHtntor2 living ut tho
commencement or this litigation, who are
vet living and who are not parties to the
proceedings. The Issue as TO the validity
of the will Is distinctly made by the
plcadings: and the question, whether or