The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-07-03
''.SSi[RONG ARGUMENT
IN VIRGINIA CASES.
Attorney-G -General Ander-.
son aud Joseph Doran
Yesterdays S Speakers
COMMISSION NOT
COURT, SAYS HE
General Counsel for Norfolk and
Western Declares Calling 1t
Court Doesn't Make II
So-"Merely An Ad-
minis tr ativc
Agency
FspccIal to The Times s-Dispatch.l !

Special to Inc tCll. Il
ASHEvILLE, N. c.. July 2.---Argu-
ment before Judge Pritchard IN the
United States Circuit Court in the
railway rate cases, in which the Lead
ing railways seek to have continued
the injunction forbidding the Virginia
Corporation Commission from enforc-
ing the new railway rates on the
ground thnt they are confisca tory In
character, was continued to-day, and
VIII be resumed tomorrow morning
when other counsel will be heard.
Attorney General Anderson, OF Vir-
glnia. this morning resumed his arsu-
ment which had been interrupted by
adjournment the evening before, and
continued his nasterly address in de-
fcnse OF the commission and its right
to put the new rates into effect.
Celebrating and sustaining BY legal
authorities the position previously
taken by him that the Virginia COM
mission was n court. and as such was
not subject to injunction by another
court. The address was necessarily of
technical nature. as purely matters
Of law are now In question. all Issues
Of fact being waived for this hear
ing.
Dornn's Several Positions.
Following Mr. Anderson was Mr..
Joseph !. Doran. OF Philadelphia, gem
erai counsel OF the Norfolk and West
+ =
q railway an argument which encom-.
psssed all points of the compla!nantss
case in a most concise manner MIR.
Doran presented to the court the fol-
lowing POSITIONS:
When the establishment Of rates is
delegated to State officers, such as the
commission. this body Is not judicial
in character. and II the rates fixed are
coniiscatory they may be enjoincd by
courts.
The only efficient remedy In this
case Is by bill In chancery asserting
tile unreasonableness Of the rates, and
the adequacy OF a remedy at law is
not to be presumed by the procedure
laid down by the State laws. The
United States courts have jurIsdic-
ton in equity and the State cannot
destroy or regulate The procedure OF
the Federal courts The remedies pro
posed by the Virginia statutes are
merely apparent and not real. and
the orders of the commission are in.
consistent with the procedure OF q
court. This court will regard sub
stance and not form.
It in1material whether the commits
sion is called court or not and so
calling it does not conclusively dem
onstrate its character. From It's very
nature 1t Is not court. but mere
~ an administrative agency, not cloth.
cd with the attributes OF court al
,la4cu ~ me laws os the United
= states.
The reasonableness OF rate Is one
Tor judicial determination. and thi,
.,z-. has the right u PASS on 1t, re.
gardless OF any remedies provided by
aaws OF Virginia. especlaiiE whef
the latter are clogged with restric
tions.
The speaker said that in the cas-
decided by Judge Purnell, which wa
afterwards passed on by the Suprem
Court Of the United States, It wa.
shown that the laws of North Caro-
lima termed its commission a court bu
8 counsel afterwards did not insist OF
the validity of this claim. In tn
Virginia case he said the commission
notified the railways to appear an
show why the two-cent fare shoul
not be adopted, thus showing tenta
tive determination to put them int
effect, a proceeding hardly consisten
with the action OF a court. The de
cision being against the railways. the.
found the Virginia courts PRACTICAL
closed to them so far as any effectiv
remedy was concerned, no lnjunctio
being allowed them to stay proceed
ings. which they alleged would b
ruinous to them.