The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-03-04
LOOKS like
BIGSTR'u..|'.GGiI.L|...E||:'
Y III ~ 4s5s
Important Dclnurragc Case Be-
gun Yesterday Before tic st
Supreme Court.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION y y J! i >
Brilliant Arguments Made by
81 Mi. Braxtol1 and Mr.T'hon,.
History Of the Case.

? I Z i 81 I T.
History 81 the Case. "a
Before the august presence Inc STU
r,rrmc Court OF Appeals yesterday there
y was begun what promises TO be long
md mighty struggle between the com.
bincd railway interestS OF Virginia and
tie Stnte Corporation Commission, N
volvng the right OF he Comnlon"eaiith
Ia impose upon transportation companies
certain restrictions and regulations hay.
Ing a more or less Immediate bearing
,pon tho questions Of Interstate and in
tcrnatlonal commerce.
waists interests and snrdry ramlylng
constitutional points cntangled IN tho
4 litigation make the case one OF the; VI.
most Importance. a brilliant array Of
legal talent has beer summoned 70 the
bar BY It. and all five Judges sat Sye'sii
tcrday while the preliminary At, nrgufn'en ~
about a dozen railway companies inter-,
cstcd In the suit and encf is represented
by coursel. For the State the Attorney
General appears, ably assisted by com
owln. TO the remarkably high character
OF tho argument,%of very considerable y Pc
interest and as the case proceeds thls
interest will probably deepen.
Question Of Jurisdiction.
Tho question u OF jurisdiction was the
#%jss,1a with which the cnsc opened. Inc
Corporation Commission or Virslaa'
which is a lsort Of legislature VIII -,
strictions. has promulgated 2 series i q
rules and regulations governing Trans.
portation companies IN the fna.ter o.
storage. dcmurra so. ca service ,cnu EEses.
rtc. The railways hold these ruies 70 p 3
4 heterogeneous OF the iEterstat tie. lntrastaNe
and foreign commerce laws, and ~ con
! f]ict with the United States Conslltutlot'
and t,,e acts OF Congress. The Common
wealth contends that tho Supreme court
cannot pass upon these rules untii ..ltIs
Is produced n concrete instance III when
thty have clashcd with the Constitution
M the congressional cnactmentH. Ihcy
have the same force As laws, ara ,.hs
validity. OF no law Is questioned untll ~
is shown to infringe upon inc rlgn.s = q
some man who has suffered from u ~
Tho rules have not even yet been putIilihto
zeal opera ton, and It is az yet I'M
,,nssi,le to fudge Of their effect. me
;npcllarts are, therefore, TO all rint ...t
and purposes, arguing ~,
argument for the Commonwealth was N
,.luded In brilliant speech ~ hrt.; q. ~
Braxton, of Staunton.
7The contention made by Mr. Alfred +.
Thorn. for the combined railways, was
Very clear. able and pointed. Inc com
+ mission has promulgated rules ana reg
nations The railway companies affect.
~, hava In response to a notice appear
cd and notc, their objections, and these
"a talks have been oycrruled. me com
mission Is looked upon as court as
well as "a Leg Isature. It had rendered
8 IL decision and the appellants haa tak.n
m anpeal from this decision. 1t was,
4. therefore, the province of the court TO
4 hear the appeal. The Constitution pro-
yi6es that the Supreme Court OF Appeals
and no other body shall review and pass
,1pon the acts OF the commission MI
yhom was in the middle OF his speech
when the court adjourned. he VIII 70
sumo this morning.
History Of the Case.
TIE case comes up on an appeal from
tl1es Of, .er OF the State Corpora ton Com
mission Prescribing demurragc. storage,
I car service, and switching charges. The
appellants are nine railway companies
acting jointly and severnly under the
l.ame OF tie Atlantic Coast Line Rali"aS
ii al. VS.. Commonwealth Of Virginia
The companies involved arc as follows:
Atlantic Coast Line, represented by Mr..
Alexander Hamilton: Chesapeake ana
ohio Railway Company. represented by
Mr. H. r. Wickham; New YORK, Phlla-
delph!a and Norfolk Railway Company,
represented by Mr.. Thomas II. Wilcox;
Norfolk and Western Railway Compahy
represented by Mr.. j. Allen Watts; sea-
board Air Line Railway. represented by
Mir e. Randolph Williams: Southern
Railway Company, represented BY MIR.
Alfred P. Thorn: Norfolk. Portsmouth
and Belt Line Railroad Company. repre-
scented BY Mr. WILCOX; Washington
Southern Railway Company. represented
by Leake and Carter, and the Baltl-i
moro and Ohio Railroad Company, rep
resented by Mr.. John G. Wilson, Coun-
sci for the Commonwealth arc Attorney
General Anderson Mr.. A. G.. Braxto1ls
and Messrs. Jcffrcss and Iawless,
Tho history behind the proceeding be-
~, ef NFas, 4 lyyt1n IN
f state Corporation Commission, Mt Its
offices IN this city, Issued a notice to tho
several transportation companies doing
4 lulsiness In the State, and to NIL others
interested that, pursuant to an act OF tho
& General Assembly, "tofrequirc tho State
Corporation Commission to fix and pres
fcribo storage. demurrage, and car SER
vice charges" 1t would consider and
near any objections against n schedule
of$ rules and regulations It, had drawn
rp,. governing transportation conlpanies
In tho matter of time limit for placing
cmpty cars and delivery of freight at
destination together with forfeitures. to
be paid by companies failing to observe
such rules and regulations; also storage.
demurrnge,5 and car service charges to
bnpaid by shippers and consignees in
certain cases; and finally local transfer
and switching charges. The railway
companies Immediately rose up In arms
and In response to the notice OF the COM
mission appeared on tho day fixed and
objected to each of the proposed rules
and regulations on the gcncrnl grounds
AS follows:
First That II purportcd to apply to regulate
or control Interstate commerce as well as in
the commission does not md cannot extend TO
or include Interstate commerce as proposed In
the said rules, and that It has M power TO
make any such rule. regulation, or requirement
res!a acanGa t2 rn or offesing Interstate conmerGS
Or control toresn commerce as well as inter.
the commission does not extend this far. and
that y has no power TO make any such rule or
commerce. GaGal r - 'slt taAs5 -
There We're various and sundry raml-
/ fications to the objectlonists in the way
OF details, but the chief grounds were as
stated, The appellants claim that the