The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-28
The Forced A. C. [. Con-
nection Pays.
JURY'S ESTIMATE OFF
The Question Whether Commission
May Require Connection Between
Roads at Loss No Longer at Is
sue in Fact, Though it is in
Court. Profits Shown by Re-
ports TO Commission.
ports TO Commission.

In view or the contention VI inc
Atlantic Coast Line with respect to
the selma connection" made noto-
rious for some time by the litigation
arising out of that roads opposition
10 an order of the Corporation Com
mi sion requiring it TO connect with
the West bound trains of the South
ern Railway at Selma for the benefit
of passengers from Eastern North
Carolina, certain reports which the
commission has required of the Coast
Line with reference TO the expenses
and receipts connected with the run
ming of the extra train from Rocky
Mount to Selma are of particular in
tereSt.
AS wiz be recalled. the litigation
arose over an order of the Commission
which simply required the Coast Line
10 make connection from Rocky
Mount batweec the hours of 12:5O and
2:35 d. M, at Selman with the South
ern Railway westbound train. The or
der was based upon long and contln-
ued complaint of people residing IN
Eastern North Carolina ard passen-
gers particularly from Springhope,
Norfolk, Plymouth. Washington. and
Greenville as to the lack of connection
for the West which necesSitated a loss
of anywhere from twenty-four to for
ty-eight hours in making a trip from
any point n their section as far West
as Raleigh. When. after long inVes-
tigation the commission finally made
the order, the railroad appealed to the
courts. claiming substantially that the
connection could not be made except
by the running of new train be-
tween Rocky Mount and Selma and
that such train could only be operated
at n loss to the road. II was therefore
alleged that the commission had no
power to make the order. the act Gre
ating the commission being also at
tackled generally rs unconstitutional
On the trial in the Superior Court
of Wake county the jury found as a
fact that the train proposed to be run
by the defendant railroad could be
operated az a cost of $40 day and
that the receipts therefrom would not
exceed on am average more than $50
daily the loss to the railroad being SD
a day or $3.50 per month The! jury.
however, sustained the right of the
Commission to make the order and the
matter went to the Supreme Court
which affirmed the verdict and judg-
ment Of the Court below. The mat
ter is now in tho Supreme Court of
the United States on writ of error OBJ
tanned by the railroad from the decis>
ion of the State Supreme Court.
While they cannot effect the deter
mination of the matter before the
Court of last resort. since the question
is almost purely one of law and the
fury having found the issues as to
expense of the train with the railroad
company. the reports furnished to the
corporation commission are significant
i'm that they prove that the contention
of the road that the train necessary to
roake the connection could only be
run at a loss was an error: since, as
a matter of fact it has proved prof.
table to the road and might be well
made even more profitable than it is
The reports first asked for by the
commission contemplated a statement
of earnings and operating expenses OF
the train from the twentieth of Feb
ruary to and including the thirtieth
of April, 1905.
Small Loss Followed by Gain.
These reports showed that during
such time the road had carried 3,2SS
passengers, the revenue from whom
mad been 81 .69S.1S, an average OF Al
passengers per day and $24.26 per day
revenue very nearly the amount for
the first two and fraction months es-
timated by the jury as the probable
revenue of the train The total cost
of operation Cor the same period
showed, however, that the estimate of
$40 per day was nearly % per cent.
too high, since the aggregate thereof
for the period was $2,135.74, an aver
age cost per day of $30.51.
So that the loss for the road IN the
first two and a fraction months was.
according to the returns, $437.56 as
against the $1,035 estimated by the
jury. following the idea of net loss
OF SIS per day.
A subsequent report asked for by
the Commission. however. for the
months of May. June. July, ana
August, tells different story. in that
operating expenses had been reduced
and receipts had increased over those
of the first period reported upon.
During those four months there
were carried 6,541 passengers. the rev
enue from whom had been $3,63794.
an average of SO passengers per day
and an average daily revenue of
$29.56. Whereas the total cost of ope-