The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-05-03

washington, April 29.-The Su-
preme Court of the United States to-
day decided in effect that the rail
road commissioners of North Car
ollna can compel railroad company
operating III that state to so adjust its
schedule as to accommodate passen-
gers on other lines from any parti-
cular part of the State. The opinion
was delivered by Justice White in
the case Of the Atlantic Coast Line
Railroad Company versus the cor
poration commission Of North Car
olina. The case arose out Of an order
issued by the commissioners directing
the railroad company to make con-
ncction at Selma, n. c., at 2.23 p.
H., with Il train on another line run
uing from the eastern part of the
state, with the object of accommodate
ing passengers whose destination
was Raleigh. The railroad company
resisted the order on the ground that
it could not be complied with with
out putting on special train which
would involve extra expense. This,
it WAS contended, amounted TO talk
in" property without due process Of
law. The commission. justified it's
course on the ground that compliance
with the order was necessary to ac-
commodatc large part of The public
The Supreme Court of North Car
olina held against the railroad COM
pany and its decision was affirmed
by today's action of the Supreme
Court Of the United States on the
ground that the order of The commits
sion does not affect the rates but is
proper Act Of state regulation.
Justice white discussed at length
the contention of the railroad COM
pany that the ease involved rates in
any way. and said:
"This does not involve enforce
mcnt by a state Of a general scheme
OF maximum rates. but only whether
an exercise of state authority to com
pei Il carrier to perform Il particul-
ar and specified duty as 50 inhcr-
entity unjust and unreasonable as to
amount to the deprivation Of proper
ty without due process of law or q
denial of the equal protection Of The
laws. In a ease involving The vail
dity of an order enforcing scheme
Of maximum rates, course. The
findin" 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 unrcasonablcneSS Of the order.
Such. however, is not the ease when
the question is as to The validity of
an order to do particular Act, the
doing of which does not involve the
question Of the profitablcncss of the
operation Of the railroad as an en-
tirety. But even if the rule applica-
bic to an entire rate scheme were to
be here applied, as The findings made
below as to the net earnings constrain
us to conclude that adequate rcmun-
Grafton would result from the gen
eral operation of the rates in force.
even allowing for any loss OCCASION
cl by thr running Of thr extra train
III question. il follows th}t the order
would nn1 be unreasonable if tested
by The doctrine announced in Smyth
versus Amcs and kindred cases.
"It docs not directly involve any
question whatever Of the power to
fix rates and the constitutional H.
initiation controlling the exercises Of
that power. hnt is concerned solely
with an order directing carrier to
furnish facility, which it is il part
Of its general duty to furnish for the
public convenience. The distinction
between an order rclatin" TO such
q subject and an order fixing rates
coming within either nf the hypothesis
which we have stated is apparent.
This is so because rs the primal duty
of n carrier Is 10 furnish adequate
facilities to the public, that mag
well be compelled. although by doing
50. as an incident, some pccuniary
loss from rendering such service may
result. Tt follows. therefore, that
the mere incurrin" Of loss from tho
performance Of such 1uty docs moi
in and Of itself '"'Hrily give rise
to the conclusion or unreasonable
ness. as would he the ease where the
whole scheme Of rates was unrcason-
able under the doctrine Of Smyth
versus Amcs. or under Inc conccs-
sinnS maln In 1hn Two nr0nnSii inns