The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-08
Argument or Selma YER
dict.
Continued from Page Nine.)

in section "a. Oh. 220 of the act of
1891, as follows: All common car
| rlers subject to the provision of this
act snail, according to their powers,
offered al reasonable, proper and
equal facilities for the interchange of
| traffic between their respective lines,
| and for forwarding and delivering Of
passengers and freights to ana from
| their several lines and those connect
ing herewith, and shall not discrimi-
| nate in their rates and charges against
such connectig lines, and connecting
INES shall be required to make as
close connection as practicable for
lhe convenience of the travelling pub
| lic."
1t did not appear that the meaning
OF this act was that the Commission
could not require connection to be
made unless it compelled both roads
| 10 cooperate. Our act, and indeed
all such acts. had their origin in the
hallway Commission Act of 1854, in
| the nth and 18th Victoria. And our
| statute was broader than the English
act, which allowed the Railway Com
| mission to order additional trains to
be put on whenever the public con-
NenienCe demanded. ana the English
courts had upheld this act.
Judge Brown asked if the Attorney
! General did not admit that the At
lantic Coast Line did furnish sufficient
accommodation.
| General Gilmer said he did not. be-
cause OF this connection being broken
Judge Brown said that he under
stood, then, that the only complaint
was as to this connection at Selma.
| General GilIner proceeded with his
| argument to show the power of the
Corporation Commission to make the
order, He said it was unnecessary TO
cite the long list of cases bearing on
| that subject. 1t was very clearly
stated in the case of Mum against
| Illinois and Charlotte, etc. Railroad
| against Gibbs, in the oath and 142nd
| y. >, These cases show that the
Commission has the power TO regulate
| rates. with the sole condition that they
shall not be 50 unreasonable as to
amount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law.
The case Of Smythe against Ames
| involved the point whether or not the
Corporation Commission Of Nebraska
in making q rate could compel this
rate to be adopted by the roads at a
| loss TO them.
In the opinion it was said that II
| the trains were run under the pro-
mitigation of the Commission it
would De at a loss TO the railroad of
| 1000. IT was shown that some OF
| the railroad companies could make 4
profit. The court took into consilera-
| uon the earring capacity of the entire
| line in the State i'm deciding that case,
although they decided ii against the
| Commission. In the 1S6th Il. s. at y.
| PSI, there was a decision to the effect
| that a rate may not be of itself re-
munerative, but yet might be as Il part
| of the entire schedule OF rates. Hence
in that case 1t was he'd that it was
reasonable to compel the transporter
| ton Of carload of coal at n GER
tain rate, even though that rate was
| not of itself rcmuncrative except as
| taken along with the entire system.
'In the case of Railway Company
VS.. Gill, 54 Ark, p. 101, at y. 112, it
| is said in the opinion of the court:
The answer seeks to test the Justice
| of tho act. not by it's effect on the
net earnings of the entire road Of The
appellant, but by it's effect upon the
net earnings of that portion OF its
road acquired by purchase, as well as
| of that part formerly owned by one
| of the consolidating companies. But
that is not the correct test. The APP
pellant cannot claim the right to
earn net profit from every mile
section or other part into which its
| road might be divided, nor attack as
unjust. regulation which fixed a
rate at which some such part would
be unremunerative. 1t can only
claim a profit fro mthe operation of
its entire line and attack rs unjust
an act that denies it the right to fix
such rates as will yield ii profit upon
its aggregate business"
This ruling was affirmed by the Su-
preme Court of the United States
G56 L. S. 649; Lawyers Edition
Book 80, p. 500
The case of the people eX rel. w. s.
CantWell VS.. st. Louis, Alton and
Terre Haute Railway Company 176
Ill. 512 was Il case somewhat similar
TO the one under consideration. In
that case the Supreme Court of flli-
nois laid down this doctrine: THE
SuHiciency of the earnings of a rail-
road to justify the expense of running
L separate passenger train over GER
tain branch line constituting part of
the entire system is not TO be de-
termined by considering the profits of
that branch alone, but of the whole
business of the various parts of the
roads operated with the branch as
one continual line
In the case OF MOrganS Louisiana
and r. r. and $. S. Co. VS.. Railroad
Commission Of Louisiana, 33 SO. Rep.
p. PA, the Supreme Court of Louisi-
ana, through Nichols, G. j., in defin-
road Commission, says: They eX-
tend to matters concerning public
comfort and public convenience, and
in the consideration of matters OF
comfort and convenience the number
of persons who may be concerned or
interested in some particular matter
at some particular point, enter as inn
pOrtant factors in determining what
is proper to be done. The Commits
sion cannot ignore the comfort and
convenience of numbers of citizens on
a line of travel or conveyance to base
their action exclusively upon con-
sderation of the amount of dollars
and cents. which may be involved.
& In the present issue it cannot be
claimed that the Southern Pacific
road either in the operation Of its
line as a whole. or that part of ii
which falls within the limits of Louisi-
ana has not been, and is not renumer-
ative; nor can it be said that the Nor
gan Railroad Company is not pay
ing corporation. We do not
think the point is made that after the
business of the Railroad Corporation
has made it fairly renumefatve, the
Commission is without general au-
thority to direct that a portion of the
'c.Trr G., ppoGtc IF that