The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-07-11
cult Court Of Appeals yesterday. is as

ult SOuIls VI Appeals SGs'Aei uaSb - 40
ollows:
II fully appreciate the fact that the
questions involved in this controversy
are serious in their character and re-
quire the closest scrutiny in order
that proper conclusion may be reach
ed in determining the same.
1T Is always a source OF regret to
me to be called upon to determine the
validity of an act of a legislative or
other body representing sovereign
State, and In this Instance 1t is espe-
cialiy so. entertaining as do the pro-
foundest respect for the State of Virginia
ard her Institutions. This is also true
OF North Carolina, where I have been
recently called upon TO decide questions
similar to those involved in this pro-
ceeding, and applies with equal force
TO any OF the States of the Union.
Solemn Duty.
However, am called upon to per.
form solmen duty. and the obligation
which rests upon rue 70 determine the
questions involved in this cause In ac-
cordance with the provisions of tho
Constitution of the United States is I'M
perative.
1T is not my purpose TO attribute any
unworthy motives to those who framed
the provisions of the Constitution au-
Ethori1ing the creation Of the Corpora
tion Commission OF Virginia. i am sat-
ished that those who were instrumental
visions were honestly endeayoring to de-
wise some means by which there could
be a prope! ascertainment of rates to be
charged by railroads and other public
corporations, yet In determining the
questions to ascertain. If possible, tins
effect OF tho constitutional provisions in
question.
rThe courst cannot consider motives
nor public policy in dealing with ques-
tons OF this character. but must be
,trrff = n ntc,s Ia, cr,v, ,fy,tv coy
BY the limitations imposed BY the Con-
stitution of the United States.
THE power and duty OF the courts OF
the. United States to afford to individuals
protection for their constitutional rights
in respect TO property even as against
persons claiming under authority of the
4 United States Itself. have repeatedly
been recognized by the Supreme Court
OF the United States. a notable case be-
Ing the one where the descendants of
General Robert e. Lee instituted suit
against officers OF the United States for
the possession OF Arlington, and the Cir
cult Court of the United States for the
Eastern District of Virginia afforded re-
lief toEthe constitutional rights OF these
descendants OF General Lee for the pos
session of that property, and this de-
cision of the Circuit Court was affirmed
by the Supreme Court of the United
States In the case OF the United States
VS.. Lee, log U. s.. 1876. The decision
Oh the lAtITCull SOuTt= ttllS sCtSe 10 Tt
ported under the title OF tho Arlington
case. Sd Hughes. So.
Contention of Complninnnts.
THE complainant In this cause seeks
to enjoin the enforcement Of certain
passenger rates recently adopted by the
State Corporation Commission of the
State of Virginia. 1t insists that Its
present rates In the State of Virginia are
not higher than & reasonable compensa-G
ton for the services rendered by it to
travellers on Its lines. and are In no sense
excessive or exorhitant: that they are
not unjustly, unduly unreasonable or IL
legally discriminatory between tndivid-
uals, nor as between localities. and that
they in no way violate the law.
1T also insists that 1t has as an Incl
dent of its property and as n property
right, the right toEcharge for each SER
vice 1t renders reasonable compensa-
ton. and that 1t Is protected by the
Fourteenth amendment to the Constltu-
ton Of the United States in making.
receiving and collecting such charge.
1T Is also insisted that the effect OF
the proposed rates would be to ma
teriaAy diminish Its charges and reduce
the same greatly below what would be q
reasonable and just compensation for
! the respective services rendered to the
patrons of Its lines.
1T is commended that to prevent It
from charging a reasonable compensa-
ton for the services rendered to the
travelling public would be to deprive It
of its property without Just compensa-
ton and without due process of law.
ut is likewise insisted by the COM
plainant that II the order OF the State
Corporation Commission OF Virginia pre-
scribing ana ixrg rates should be per-
United to go into effacts-it would sub
feet it to the danger of n multitude OF
suits based on such order. and to pro-
secutions for penalties in enormous
| amounts,
Prayer for Injunction.
'-Among other things, complainant
| prays for an Injunction against Isev-
erly r. Crump, Henry G. Stuart. Joseph
E.. Willard, individually and ms con-
stituting the State CORPORATION Commits
sion OF Virginia, and r., 4, Wilson, clerk
OF the state Corporation Commission
during the, tendency of this suit
4 "On May s. 1907, an order was en-
tered restraining the defendants from
1 Fs enforcing the provisions OF the afore'
4 I'd said act. and at the Same time NOTES
before me on the 27th day of June. 1907
ana show cause why the Injunction thus
granted should not be continued Until
| the final hearing
4 1.-The defendants file an answer. II
the Corporation Commission ara moi
conhscatory, However. when this mo
/ ton came on for hearing counsel repre-
i senting complainant and defendant
signed nm agreed statement OF facts
as7to that part OF the bill which charge
4 that the rates are contscatory TN
part OF the agreement which is essent
j lally to the determination Of the Dues
tons now before the court, read as fol
afiaNf Z. ct is agreed that. that s. II The cour
tEst(sh ottId hold that 1T has jurisf!stion q
4 question OF the merits upon the hear
this rule buS thereupOl