The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-07-28


thc the co'S,pisio vi =,
~ III thu tt,rnn -lieneT9l y, Z.
, ia iHt jsailtip OF the.
,Idi ~ oh sns sSs mo
tbs ~ section 1919 Z, I. q,
iiiil lei con,D,isaton y athor,Aeu
ID, " reti n ~,
M, ns 70 10 80.
nsi i,Ss min t)s n
tlai, III t'S commission the enforceil,oilt
ilnosi,, sa ,a d tas a "bSt
lblle \ M. ,i, ny ~
,,,sa M WITHOUT lmiile,ning tho co1i +
ISnv befor,,' II. hearing what ~ lias 70
st latese, s'' passing ,aas s'Hf,,
th6reoi E,sr W ~ n,vt s oar
4 s sa,n 10 proceed Otherwise uiider this
statute would be rerugnnrt TO 4, f0nd v.
mental principles. and would ,lr'a l
statute Itself "a yi9i = 81, VIZ S. l'nIte
q States The jurisdiction 81 tho commas y 3
sinn il further enlarged BY clause ~ OF
section 1924 (bp of the Code, beillg Sec :.
tion chapter II e. IN ~
MISSION il there given jurisdiction TO etl-s
Stcrtal,l i petition fed before It com ,r, 4
planning q q q w, ev o e,
e ceSSi of be established, T.. says the
i'll iienisiature Ia this net the State Cor.
Z ;nofation Commission, Sitting ms Sn court
81 record shi,ll haye risdiic Ton. ny ~
IN 'ininnction under this statute Sagainst
Y 3thc Virsinla Passenger md Power Conf
pnny. restraining It from, increasing, ! Is
rates by scorinuing Transfers sl sSee
report Of state Corporation
u 1904 Part II. page 04) u. "A
$SSirhe commission having summoned. the
N defendant company before ~ 20 e SHOW TO-,
III cause why q penalty should nov pe ~,
siairiy and pass 5udcallys upon any issues i,
9properly raised. It matters not that one
n nff tho issues Is the constttutionalityo q
gtl,e net which the commission seeks ~, 70
# enforce. If the net is void, 1T Is q 1lst
n reason why the company cannot be CON m, 4
PEELED to comply with # a5or pc il meg ~
violating 1t. 3isB n ttsss4 u Y 5},l s5a@
AGAINST Fourteenth Amendment.
Ff555 IN s,,pport OF its argument that t ti.l
Il act In question here contrayenes tno
offourteentl1 amendment Of tho Constit u
N lies p chi eilyupon tho authorltyof the cnse
A Of Railway Company VS.. Smith, l7a1 U,.s.;
& Gs4. The Supreme Court Ct me uniitGu
G. States, In that case lleid uncons't;tu
tiona statute Of Michigan acquiring sn1u ing
Il opinion delivered by Justice Pe ,ni.,
hmm declares TINT o >, ,a ,n,s1
process .es, OF lav, and the equal projection +,
u Of the laws. rho statute provided th u
& the tickets might be required TO ne , l Is
his wife and children the ticket 70 pc
valid for two ye.irs md the unused por-
& ton then to be redeemed. The court says; says;
i've cannot regard this exceptional
Legislation the exercise Ct ] q les
y right which Is included in the greater
4 ono5to fix by statute IN aSim,lm rates Tor
q railroad companies. The latter IS ne g
Ala n fYn
$i IN ali cases and Without discrimina ton
N in favor Of or againstf,lny Individual. ~
is tho power5to declare general la y, %
the subject OF rates beyond which the
Z Is at8liberty to conduct It's work N suG, NC,
N n manner MS may seem to \ t. best suited
VI for its prosperity and success. rms gis
Il very different power from TINT cS0V-
ait is not 4 general law upon the sub
sEiect OF rates. establishing naXinumg ties
which the company can IN no ease g, I, VIZ, VIC,
+ lnteS The legislature having est bl'snnll5
assumes to interfere with the manage
lnent Of the company while conductingi |
Its affairs pursuant 20 and obeylng W
statute regulating ra ties and chnrgos, a!sil
TO provide for a discrimination, an eS-
ception III favor Of those who may, desrc 4,
/ md are able to purchase t.cSets ~ VIM w \
/ might be called wholesale rates - dls .t
\ the Wholesale buyer, leaving the others
suhiect to the general rule. ana ~ as rs
"a fumes to regulate the time IN which, the
Ticket purchased slnll be valid and 70
q road company has over before ,.rt.o'vlifd.5
Y 1t thus invades tho general right ofSa l.
company to conduct and .nanaEe us own I
5Snffalrs. and conpels 1t TO CIV the use
rate to those who come within iho FRO
visions OF the statute, and to that en-,
tent It would seem that the statute takes
the property OF the company without duo
y process OF law si5 fs5i
Other Decisions.
5srhe LEANED Judge reasons ct length
plong the same lines. Tho opiinlel' es-
tnbllshe.s that the State may pt@.ribe |
4 d .naxlnlum rcalcaof rates, but !. cannot
compel a lalrond company to contract
at charge legs than tho established or
regular scale OF fares. The reasoning OF
1.-THE learned judge is not entirely and
clearly co nyi, cling, nor Is tho conclusion
reached by him{very satisfactory, and !
three Of the Judges dlssented. But W.
IRE bound by this decision, as It cmana tea |
from the highest tribunal IN he country;
\ The case has been referred to IL sevGill
Of the United Atdtes, without criticism
followed In New York. In that StateSa
statute somewhat similar to tho Nichl.
* gun and flIsihla s.i.ul % We I,nr,a
u Icy w. N. Y. H. - and w. Co., 1872 N.
4 ", 800. The Court of Appeals Of New
York refers 10 the opinion Of Justice
Peckhum on the Michigan statute, and
IS not disposed to agree with all OF its
i reasoning. But the court, In brief
opinion. concludes that 1t is bound by
this opinion of the Supreme Court Of the
United States on n quest ton arising un-
der the Federal Constitution, and held
4 the New York statute to be unconstltu-
tional. 9a ait
4 In referring to the case In 173 u. S., |
81 the Attorney General says In his. written
I brief: II frankly conccde thnt unless this
& case can be distinguished from the Mich
il igan case. or unless 1t can be shown that
s this case Is oyerruled by some other de-
clsion or decisions Of the United States
& Supreme Court, the decision Of the United
States Supreme Court In the Michigan
h case must be considered SO conclusive OF
4 this case ana the Churchman act must,