The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-09-29

a
--=--=L=-----
tronize Longs Baggage Transfer Com
pany.
Similar procedure. 1t is stated. has
been adopted in other cities, SO that
nearly the entire travelling public is
affected.
Plead Jurisdiction.
At the beginning OF the hearing Luz
Glen II. Cooke. counsel for the Norfolk
and Western Railway Company, pre-
sented demurrer and raised the ques-
ton OF Jurisdiction. A similar plea
was made by Fred Harper. attorney for
the Longs Baggage Transfer Company.
Howell G. Featherston and John G..
Haythe are counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.. Harper. however. filed a special
plea stating that Longs is not trans
portation company, with the rights Of
eminent domain. Judge Prentis re-
marked that the commission realized
that 1t was not public service corpo.
ration. but added that this does not
mean that 1t Is not proper defend
ant In this case. This was apparently
agreed to.
Proceeding. Mr.. Harper made tho
case. that the railroad company, as a
public service corpora ton. begins its
public duty only when 1t gives trans
portation check to the passenger in
exchange for his baggage. and that its
public duty ends when it receives the
check at the end of the journey. It's
object, therefore, in making contracts
governing the hauling OF baggage Is
not 10 perform the duties imposed upon
IT by the Constitution. but to protect
Its private property.
Not Public Duty.
IN other words, IL the baggage lis
delivered TO II prior TO the time when
the passenger presents his ticket and
gets his check, 1T is In the position OF
a warehouseman, and not of public
service corporation. Therefore, 1t is
argued. the STATE Corporation Commits.
sion has no authority to take cogniz-
ance OF the matter
Replying to questions asked BY
Chairman Prentis, counsel for the re.
spondcnts said that the railway com.
pany takes its course in such matters In
pursuance of public policy and for the
protection of its patrons Mr.. Cooke
said that the company cares nothine
about what concern handles the bag
gage. II desires 10 get rid OF contro.
versies between rivals as to who shall
carry baggage, and which annoys pas.
sengers Long, II was stated, pays onl,
500 year for the privileges he enjoys
and the company Will recognize his
claim checks and in return for them
give the passenger his transportation
check without further means of iden.
tification. Bond is given by the LONG
fNnyv ha
loss. Were the check system with.
drawn entirely, 1t was argued. there
would result the swarm of agents and
draymen. troubling the passengers.
Public Inconvenience.
Mr.. Featherston and Mr.. Haythe ar
gued that the public was largely de.
prived OF It's rights. in that 1t was not
equally treated when 1t preferred to
patronize some company other than the
one which the railroad had contracted
with. Mr.. Featherston advanced the
proposition that when two concerns &C.
quire the same rights. transportation
companies owe it to them not to dis
criminate between them.
In his conclusion Mr. Cooke talked
of possibilities of loss or theft. Chair
man Prents inquired as to the FEAST
bllity OF a system of receipts. inde-
pendent of the passenger to the
licensed transfer companies. so as to
save them. Mr.. Harper iquired as to
why Judge Prentis drew distinction
between draymen and licensed transfer
companies, whereupon the chairman
replied that he saw a good reason for
the distinction. but did not care to
discuss it at that time
Th. romn,iSSio roSa ioftor ~ t,,a
been decided that the attorneys would
present written. agreed statement
OF facts within the next ten days.