The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-11-23
CHURCHNAN LAW IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO COURT DECLARES

portant and pertinent modification 20 be
considered IN connection with the case
uhoer review appears TO be in the Rail
ROAD Commission cases. IN which Chief
justice Waite, who wrote the opinion in
'iuhn VS. Illinois. also wrote the opinion.
and in which he says IN part: From
what has thus been said. 10 Is not 70 be
Inferred that this power OF Limitation or
regulation IS Itself without limit. This
power 20 regulate IS not power 20 de-
stroy, and Limitation Is not the equivalent
OF confscauOn. Under pretense Of reBu-
latng fares and freights. the State can
require railroad corporation 10 carry
persons or property without reward:
neither can II do that which in law
amounts 90 a taking Of private property
for public use without just compensation,
or without due process OF law"
Touching the question OF the extent Of
legislative authority 10 Fix or regulate
rates. the court quotes with approval M
Justice Harlan I'm Smith Va. Anes, as fol-
lows:
while rates for the transportation Of
persons and property within the limits OF
q state are pr MARTY for its deternina-
ton. the question whether they are 80
unreasonably low as 10 deprive the car
rlcr Of IT'S property without such compsn-
sation the Constitution secures. and
therefore without due process OF law.
cannot be 80 conciusively determined by
the Legislature % State. or by regula-
lions adopted under its authority. that the
matter may not bevome tho subject OF
Judicial inquiry.
In announcing its conclusion the court
Judge Cardweil Speaking says:
eve gully recognize. as did the court
in Beardsley vs. y. Y. I. T. 8. W. that
tile decision IN the Michigan case IS con-
elusive upon ~ on the question Of the
constitutionality Of the statute under con-
sideration. and. therefore. the judgment
of the State Corporation Commission corn
planned Of must be affirmed.
Long-Standing Case.
IN the case Of Roller vs.. Paul. in
which the opinion q the court is written
by Judge George NJ Harrison. the decree
~ the Circuit Court Of Rockingham
county IS ia ali respects affirmed. The
opinion concludes cause which has
continued ia the courts in some form for
forty years. The original bin was filed
iu the Circuit Court ~ Rockingham Eve
wears before that. or ln 1875. when Nalen-
tine and Franklin sought 20 enforce
Judgment in favor o. the plaintiffs and
against the defendants. Tho cause later
developed into general creditors suit
against tho firm ~ Isaac Paul q sons.
and against the individual members OF
the firm. in "a suit afterwards instituted
tract OF land belonging 20 william T.
Paul was sold and tho proceeds were
turned over 20 John r. Roller as special
commissioner and receiver who was re-
quired 10 place the sum NJ interest and
have 81 forthcoming when required by
decree. II was never invested by him. but
has remained in his hands 10 the present
time. BY decree OF April. 1893 the ap-
pciiant was directed 20 settle his account
as receiver q the funds derived from the
sale % the william J. Paul land. The
credit 20 be allowed the appellant and
the interest he shall be required 20 ac-
count for are the subjects ~ the con-
troversy just settled by the appellate
court.
II appears that the appellant brought
up certain claims that were payable out
OF the funds 10 his hands as a receiver. and
insisted that DE should receive credit in
the settlement o. his account for the full
face value OF such claims. The court
holds that this contention cannot be sus-
tanned. and that the Circuit Court was
plainly right IN limiting Its receiver 10 A
credit Of only such sums as he had paid
out IN acquiring the claims In question,