The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-02-07
A. c. LIS GROUNDS TO REHEAR,
Digest of Assignment Of Error IL
.'Selma Connection Case

SciIlfSA SCIHcctItI
1t was noted several days ago that
! the Atlantic Coast Line had fled a
| petition to re-hear in the famous Sell
ma connection case by which The a. &.
| l.. was ordered by the Corporation
| Commission 10 make connection with
the Southern Railroad at Selma Tor
the convenience of passenger traffic
from Eastern North Carolina, the
order simply directing the defendants
to make the connection daily at Selma
at the time therein mentioned, with
out specifying whether this should be
done by Quickening the speed OF tram
No. 80, or by extending the run of the
Springhope or Plymouth train, or by
! putting on an extra train from ROCKY
Mount to Selma, and the Judgment
leaving to the defendant the same lip-
erty OF choice rs to the mode in which
Int shall put into effect the order OF the
commission
The assignments of error by the
plaintiff in the case on appeal are
substantially as follows:
That the court erred in its decision
that subsection Of section l9ot OF
the Code giving to railroad companies
the right to regulate the time ana
manner in which passengers snail DC
transported was modified by the vas
sage of chapter 800 of the Laws Of So
by virtue of the usual repeating clause
in such act 50 as to confer upon tue
railroad commission the power to
regulate such transportation.
That the court did not avert to the
fact that when the corporation com
mission was create! by chapter 800 of
the acts of 1899, that act repealed IN
! toto the railroad commission act or
1881 and all acts amendatory Thereon.
As the corporatiO:! commission act
contained no general repeating clause
| The plaintiff contends that the Sect1on
| of the Code referred TO giving railroads
| the right to regulate the PASSENGER
| bushes is still iii full force and effect.
That the opinion OF the court in the
said case was erroneous. because the
:. urt held thah the plaintiff hLI .he
nowe~ TO require defendant to oper-
ate a fourth train each way daily. at Il
daiiY loss of fifteen dollars because
the deft!:cant's tu.'I.u': froln It's atnef
,,aera tiers were sufficient to enaDie Il
to meet said loss and still have far
prcft from it's ai.'iic ca an f'''
t;tioner contends that thiS requirement
: in derogation Of the rights and I'M
rnunitcs conferrat upbl thu defend
ant by the Constitutiu: Of N"rtll
carolina and bv the Constitution al
lie Uni-ad States. Petitioner relieves
that it's immunity from such require
ment is distinctly dac".i'.a W North
\
lf43, t. =. ass.
That the court in its statement of
fact overlooked evidence tending 10
show and conclusively prove that the
route by way of Weldon was just IS
convenient and just as cheap as the
route by Selma to most of the people
living along the Coast Line IN Eastern
North Carolina.
That the court further overlookei
the point made by defendant that the
statute does not give the commission
poWer to require one or two connect
ing lines to make close connection
but the power is given to them TO re
uuire both lines to make connection.
and in this case the order only pro-
ceeds against one of the two connect
ing lines that is the defendant.
That train No. 80 of the defendant
was the train which had been con-
Meeting with the Southern at Selma
between and o'clock y. m. the
court seems to have overlooked the
act that the commission declared it
to be impracticable for this train 70
make this connection, and petitioner is
advised and believes that when the
commission decided that it was I'M
practicable for defendants train NO.
SO to make this connection, then the
power of the commission was at an
end and it had no authority TO make
the order in question.
The petition to rehear was examined
by ex-Chief Justice Shepherd and eX-
Judge Frank I. Osborne as the two
disinterested attorneys required by the
rule to examine petitions to rehear
and certify their opinion of the error
of the court.
Supreme Court having met yester-
day the petition will probably be
speedily decided b. Judges Walker and
Hoke TO whom it is directed.