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

s5a Churchnaan Act Again.
B The Corporation Commission, in hold ole
{ ing the Clurchmun act in conflict Wit y
] tho Tourteenth Amendment to the Con- Q
1 stitution OF NJ tho United States, took
course tint was unacceptable. The rca req
81 aonng Of Judge Holt, OF the Corporation
Court Of Stanton, left nothing to be SAID
II this particular, and the Corporation '
I'll Commission after hearing the argument " en-
81 On both sides, said: I'VE are greatly
strengthened In our inclusion by q con-
vincing opinion delivered several days
tlgo upon this question by tho learned 1.:''e
IA Judge OF the Corporation Court OF Staun-
~ ton in which lie reaches a similar result
IN the opinion handed down, the the Co y
ration Commission points out that the
two MAIN arguments Of the atlantic
Coast Line Rnillond against the legality
Of the Churchman act were: First, that that
the net was in conflict with the Consti-
III tuition OF the United States, and, secondly,
III that under the Constitution Of Virginia 1l
the Legislature hnd no anthority TO pre-
N scribe or fix rates for Transports ton, the
authority to exercise legislative func-
III lions Of the State in that respect being
d con ferred exclusively upon the State Cor
& poration Commission. n. y ", IS
In arguing In support Of the Churchm M y
81 net. Attorney General Anderson said In
y his printed brief: ..l35 A
II frankly concede that unless this case .
I can be distinguished from the Michigan,
case (Rallroad VS.. Smith, 17S u 50, or
unless I'll can be shown that this case case Is
oyerruled by some other decision or. deci-5
sfons Of the United States Supreme Court,
the decision Of the United States Supreme r''.
Court In the Michigan case must be con-
silered as conclusive Of this case, and the
Churchman act must, In that event, be
held to u be unconstitutional N
. The Attorney General, however, failed
ITO convince the CORPORATION Commission
n that any valid distinction could be drawn.
I Between the act passed by the Michigan
4 Legislature and that passed by the Legls--
Iature OF Virginia. In view Of the almost
exact similarity Of those two acts. and in.
view Of the adjudication by the United
States Supreme Court, which adjudication
II has been frequently referred to With COM
mendation by the United States Supreme
Court, this decision is the undoubted
Jaw to-day. It Is impossible to see how
the Corporation Commission could have
II made any other decision than that which
I they have just given. a point OF special
Z interest In their opinion Is in their last
clause. In which the corperation Com
mission specifically avoids any expression
s,ot opinion On the second point raised BY.
v the railroad In this argument, namely,
& that the sole power to legislate In regard
to railroad rates and regulations had,
q by the Constitution of Virginia. been ex-
IS clusiyely vested In the Corporation Com
mission. Commenting upon this, the Cor
poration Commission says; @
"rho entire luw-making power OF the
q people Of Virginia is vested III their rep
< rcsentatives, constituting our General AS
sembly, subject only to such Limitations
as may be placed upon It by tho Consti-
hutton OF the State. Whether tho provi-
slons OF the Constitution relative to the
powers ana authority OF this commission.
and ycstlng in this commission the legis-
) !atlye power to make rates, are SO worded
; ps to exclude the General Assembly from
exercising its legislative power In that
e respect. Is q question which 1t Is needless
"A for the commission to pass upon, unless
ut Is SO presented as to render It's adjudi-
cation absolutely essential to the decl-
kion OF tho case"
Despite the failure Of tho Corporation
/ Commission to express Its opinion on tins
point. and notwithstanding tho doubts
suggested by Judge Holt, The Times Dis
Y patch IL still OF the opinion that without
reference to the decision by the United
States Supreme Court, the Churchman
& net was Unconstitutional,