The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1907-05-02
VICTORY FOR PUBLIC
State is Given Power Over
Schedules of Railroads.
DECISION OF HIGH COURT
Atlantic Coast Line Appealed Against
North Carolina Railroad
Commission But Lest
- Contention

.AsS
The supreme court cf the United
States Monday decided. in effect, that
the railroad commissioners of North
Carolina can compel railroad COM
pany operating in that state to so ad-
just its schedules as to accommodate
passengers on other lines from any
particular part of the state.
The opinion was delivered by JUS
tice White, in the case of the At
lantic Coast Line Railroad Company
VS.. the Corporation Commission of
North Carolina. The case arose out
OF an order issued by the commis-
sioners, directing the railroad COM
pany to make connection a. Selma,
n. c., at 2:50 p. m, with a train on
another line running from the eastern
part OF the state, with the object OF
accommodating passengers whose des-
tination was Raleigh.
The railroad company resisted the
order On the grounds that it could not
be complied with without putting on
special train. which would involve
extra expense. This, it was contend
ed, amounted to taking property with
out due process OF law. The cormis-
sion justified its course on the ground
that compliance with the order was
necessary to- accommodate large
part OF the public. The supreme court
of North Carolina held against the
railroad company, and its decision was
affirmed by Monday action OF the su-
preme court OF the United States On
the ground. that the order Of the COM
mission does not affect the rates, bu:
is a proper act of state regulation.
Y. Justice White discussed at leng;h
the contention of the railroad COM
pany that. the case involved rates in
any way, and said, in part:
This case does not involve en-
forcement by state OF general
scheme of maximum rates, but only
whether an exercise of state author-
ity to compel a carrier to perform
a particular and specified duty as so
Inherently unjust and unreasonable as
to amount to the deprivation OF prop
erty, without due process Of law, or
denial of the equal protection OF the
laws. In case involving the validity
Of an order enforcing a. scheme OF
maximum rates, Of course, the find
!: ings that the enforcement of such
scheme will not produce an adequate
return for the operation of the rail-
road, in and of itself, demonstrates
the unreasonableness Of the order
Such, however, is not the case Wnen
the question is as to the validity OF
an order to do a particular act the
doing of which does not involve the
question of the profitableness Of the
operation of the railroad as an en-
tirety.
This is so because as the primal
duty of carrier is to furnish ade-
auate facilities to the public, that may
well be compelled, although by doing
SO as an incident, some pecuniary loss
from rendering such service may re-
suit. It follows, therefore, that the
mere incurrirg of a loss from the per-
formance of such duty does not, in
itself, necessarily give rise to the con-
Nclusion of the uDreasonableness, as
would be the case where the whole
scheme of rates was unreasonable un-
der the doctrine of Snyth vs.. Ames,
or under the concessions made in the
two propositions We have stated. OF
course, the fact that the furnishing of
necessary facility ordered may oc-
casion an incidental pecuniary loss is
an important criterion to be taken
into view in determining the reasona-
bleness of the order, but it is not
the only one AS the duty to furnish
necessary facilities is codeterminous
with the powers Of the corporation,
the obligation to discharge that duty
must be considered in connection with
the nature end productiveness of the
corporate business as a whole the
character Of services required, and
the public need for its perform
formance. .....