New-York tribune., 1907-04-30
CAN MAKE A ROAD LOSE.
State May Make 1t GiUe Needed
Service to Public.

Washington. April 29-The Supreme Court de-
cided to-day in effect that the railroad commits
sioners of North Carolina can compel railroad
company operating in that state to adjust its
schedule as to accommodate passengers other
lines from any particular part Of the state. The
opinion was delivered by Justice White in the
case of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
agt. the Corporation Commission Of North Caro-
lima.
The case arose out of an order issued by the
commissioners directing the railroad company TO
make connection at Selma at 225 D. m. with
train another line running from the eastern
part of the state. with the object Of accommodate
ing passengers whose destination Raleigh
The railroad company resisted the order the
ground that it could not be complied with without
putting a special train which would involve
extra expense This il was contended. amounted
to taking property without due process OF law.
The commission justified its course on the ground
that compliance with the order was necessary to
accommodate large part of the public The Su-
preme Court of North Carolina held against the
railroad company, and its decision was affirmed
by to-days action of the Supreme Court Of the
United States the ground that the order Of the
commission does not affect rates but is a proper
act of state regulation.
Justice White discussed at length the contention
of the railroad company that the case involved
rates in any way and said:
This case does not involve enforcement by a
state of general scheme Of maximum rates.
but only whether exercise OF state authority
specified duty is so inherently unjust and un-
reasonable as to amount 70 the deprivation OF
property without due process Of law or denial OF
volving the validity of order enforcing scheme
OF maximum rates of course the finding that the
enforcement OF such scheme will not produce an
adequate return from the operation of the rail-
road, in and Of itself demonstrates the unreasOn-
ableness of the order. Such. however, is not the
case when the question is as to the validity Of
an order TO do particular act the doing OF which
does involve the question OF the proftableness
But even II the rules applicable TO entire rate
scheme were to be here applied. as the findings
TO conclude that adequate remuneration would re-
suit from the general operation of the rates in
the running Of the extra train in question. il
follows that the order would not be unreasonable
Smyth agt. Ames and kindred cases.
Ii does not directly involve question Wha tever
Of the power 10 fix rates and the constitutional
concerned solely with order directing carrier
10 furnish facility which it is part OF its gen
The distinction between an order relating to such
a subject and an order fixing rates coming within
either or the hypOtneSeS which We nave stated IS
apparent This Is because. the primal duty
of carrier is TO furnish adequate facilities 70
the public, that duty may we'll be compelled al
though by doing incident some peCuniary
follows therefore that the mere incurring OF a
loss from the performance of such duty does
not in and of itself necessarily give rise to the
conclusion of unreasOna bleuesS as would be the
reasonable. under the doctrine of Smyth agt
Ames or under the CONCESSIONS made IN the two
that the furnishing of necessary facility ordered
may occasion an Incidental pecunary loss Is sn
important criterion to be taken into view IN deter
mining the bleness of the order. but II IS
the only one. As the duty TO furnish necessary
corporation the obligation 10 discharge that duty
must be considered in connection with the nature
whole tie character Of the Service required and
the public need for its performance.