The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-14

terted With pdbic interest within
,i, ean.uye OF the do~tttu- },.I.-..
-ti,l -stsc i-~s 50 fcIc ~ st-'t-d ass,
We ntcu so no iurthef. Enough has
a.reduy been Sald To snow Lit@e WHenH
iI4,vatt. property Is devoted 10 pun
/ nc. use II g subject 10 pupllc reGuIa-
tuon. Ihls mas been repeated over
ana over again in al tine courts ca
tat on or authorities would De work
OF supererogaton. IT The puphc can
regulate the charges OF coilmah
carer so that only Il IS not deprived
OF all profit as rs neld ~ ellIlial
Railroad, 1873 L. $. $50 ana DoE w
/ Beidelman 10 L j. $50, 1t can Ger
tainly require q connection for the ac-
| Commodat on Of thousands on cur
| people. even it, at the utmost u re-
| cures loss of S1a day out or .
| railroad company making $-'o0o'VpV
net earnings annually out OF us opef-
auOn III TINS State
! 1t is not necessary that the paruc-
ular service required shan be proht- 4
! abe f the total earnings IN this state
show prott. IL Is precisely because
some particular service. which the
IpuDno COmtDnt 60 convenience may
| require. is not probate that the com
/ p@uN dccimes 10 render t. 4 prefers 1
| to work the soft spots. the best pay !
nag one only, and 1t S precisely Tor 4
! That reason that the COMMISSION is +
vested with the power to require those
! things to be done il reasonable ara
just tnot necessarily plontabae} as To-
] which there is the protection OF an.
Iappcal &c The Superior court ANA al
/ further reN.eW here
! In Railroad v Gill. 1856 l.. :. 6Gl
the court affirming the Supreme Court
OF Arkansas i'm same case CA Ark
I1t2) says that the common Garner
cannot attack as unjust regulauon
! which fixes Il rate at winch some part
would he .uIt1}r 5tratNc. ....i 10 ;
the extent that the question of inius-
ticc is TO be determined by the effects
o. the act upon the earn ngs Of the
company, the earnings OF tac c.stirc
t.nc must be estimated. IN taliroad
y. MIMI, loo g.. :. -jl. she court say.
/ that if upon tl2 Nn0lc OrCratfN3sa ~
hauling coal the road naAes = irat, .
/ the requirement AS to q fair prom
upon Investment Is sat SIZED put.,.,i-
| standing under the order OF inc l5.-.-
| mission there would be a loss ~ ha0i-
mig under the order ci tire COMMISSION
there would be loss hi hauling at
+ tng at the rate h1,ed in car load lots.
/ III Railroad Mlln, supra the court
say: we do not tn nkAt beyond the
i power OF the State commission 10 re-
/ duce the fre ght upon q particular ar
/ ticIe. provided the companies are aD!c
to earn a fair profit upon their entire
. business and the burden -
upon them TO impeach the acton of
the commission in I'll par ,
ticular. In Canwcll Y, Railroad
t,G III 512 the Supreme
court OF Illinois Laid down the same
trine thus: "'i'hc sufnclercy Of the
earnings Of 4 railroad 70 lust1y the
! expense CT running 4 separate passen-
ger train over a certain branch line
constituting part OF the entire Sys-
TEN. is not TO be determined by con-
3 hot nah ,
alone, but Of the whole business of
the various parts of the roads opera
I ted with the branch as one continual
line" In Railroad and s. :. Co Y.
Commission Of La. the Supreme
Court of that State through Nichols.
G. j. in defining the powers possessed
by the Railroad Commission, says;
! 'rhey extend to matters concerning
public comfort and convenience. ana
III the consideration of matters OF
comfort and convenience, the num-
Der of persons who may be concerned
or interested IN some particular mat-
ter at some particular point, entcr as
important factors in determining what
/ ~ to be done. The commission cannot
| ignore the comfort and convenience
of numbers OF citizens on u line OF
travel or conveyance TO base their ac-
ton exclusively upon q consideration
of the amount ~ dollars and cents
which may be involved IL thc
present issue ii cannot be claimed that
the Southern Pacific road either i'm
the operation OF it's line Il whole
or that part OF il which tails Within =!
the limits of Louisiana has not been. !
and is not rcmunerative: nor can il !
DC said that the Morgan Railroad
company IS not paNi1s corporation.
Ne do not think the point is
made that after the business of The
railroad corporation had made it fair
nav fiNrs4 =
without general authority Ia direct
that portion of The surplus profits
OF that expression can be uSed)
should be applied TO the promotion
OF the comfort ana convenience oi
the people along the line of road !
, When such 4 point in the business of
the road IS reached. the rights of the
general public come clearly IN view"
In L. :. y. TransMo. Freight Asso. /
l66 L. $. 322, the court says 1T
must also be remembered thar rail-
ways are corporations organized for
public purposes. have been granted
valuable franchises and privileges !
(and among such the right to take
private property Of citizens is uotge
the cast). ANA that they all primarily
owe duties 10 the public Of L higher
nature even than that OF earning large
dividends for thei share holders
in Gladson V. Mind, l66 L. :. 43O !
the court says The State which
created the corporation may make all
nccdtul regulations of a police char
acter for the government of the COM
pany while operating Us road within |
the jurisdiction; it may prescribe the
location of the plan of construction of |
the road and the rate of speed at :
which the trains snail run and the !
places al which they shall stop. and /
may make any other reasonable rcgu-
lations for their management in order !
TO secure the object Of its incorpol-
(Co'ltinued ON Page FourO