The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-12-08
Corporation Commission
Declines to Rule on
Jurisdiction.
C. & o. RAILWAY
GETS INTO CASE,
Files Petition and Becomes Dc
fendant-Commission Unwill-
ing to Act on Constitutional
Question-Counse Says
Dock Is Necessary to
Prosperity Of City.

J, Saying that 1t would not decide thu
constitutional questions involved unit
al was forced to do SO, the State Cor
iporation Commission yesterday, at tbs
tconclusion OF the argument on the mo-
;tion of the respondents to dismiss the
petition asking for the closing Of the
tRichmond dock, announced that Il
would mako no decision but would pro
ceed with an investigation OF the case
on its merits. Tuesday, January 81
was fixed upon as the day when the for.
NAL hearing. with the production of cvi'
dence, Is to be begun.
This action on the part of the com
mission came rs complete surprise
40 all parties. For two days the argu-
ment had proceeded on the application
of the respondents to have the case dis.
missed because of want of Jurisdiction
and because the petitioners had not
made ont a case In accordance with the
act on the subject. 1t had been pre-
sumed that some decision woulo tt
rendered on that point.
LeEislnturc's Power.
However, when Judge George L
Christian. the last speaker. had taker
Iis seat. Judge Prentis Immediately
stated the position of the commission
lie said the vital question at issue was
whether tho LEGISLATURE had the power
under the Constitution 20 delegate te
the Corporation Commission the power
TO close dock over which the public
had rights.
we would be slow" he said, ito pro-
nounce an act of the General Assem-
bly, unconstitutional unless 1t may be
necessary. 1t may nor become neces-
sary to rule on this point in this case
III 4, "a.
found that the protection OF public
rights and considerations of equity
would demonstrate that 1t would be
Improper to close this dock In that
event event ruling on the jurisdiction
of tEc commission would be superru.
o,ig. We VIII not. therefore. decide
that queHtion until we are forced TO dc
so. We will proceed instead TO a hear.
ing of the facts In the case at any day
which may be found satisfactory TO all
parties.
This action constitutes an apparen,
defeat OF the respondents position on
Che constitutional question.
Fix Jnnunry IL.
After some consideration of conpe.
Hient day between the six attorney,
and the commission. II was determined
TO set Tuesday, January 81, for the
hearing. The commission thereupon
rose.
The end Of the argument came at
2:3o o'clock. No Limitation had been
placed on the speakers as to time, and
rather lengthy constitutional arguments
were advanced. the magnitude of the
Interests involved being taken into
consideration.
Aside from the decision of the com.
mission in regard to further proceed
tday was the fling of an answer to the
hiam r. Trigg Company by the Chesa-
.peake and Ohio Railway, which there
fdore becomes a party defendant In
this answer the same four grounds for
asking for the dismissal of the petition
are set forth as were stated by Judge
Beverly T. Crump for the individual
land owners.
Il Must Furnish Water.
The answer of the Chesapeake and
aDhio comprises exhibits of It's connec-
ton with the case. including the deed
TO 1t from the James River and Kama
wha Canal Company and from it to the
Trigs Company. In the latter instru-
ment the railroad bound itself to sup.
ply water for the dock at the east fac
ing of the masonry of the first loc.s
above the ship dock.
The railroad further claimed that the
closing of the dock would be contrary
to the terms of the act of the last
Legislature, which provided that II
should not be held to impair the obll-
cation of any contract existing at the
time of its passage between the owner
of the wharf or his predecessor, in the
title and individuals, other than the
public.
that water transportation for the city
of Richmond, including the Richmond
dock. is factor which, in its judG-
ment, enters into the welfare and pros
perlty of the city of Richmond, in
which the Chesapeake snd Ohio Rail-
way Company has large interests. NOT
only as a property owner, but as con-
nectcd with its business of transpor-
tation."
Avcrse to Institutions.
Speaking for the city OF, Richmond
CITY Attorney Henry r. Pollard argued
at the morning session that it would
be subversive Of a republican form of
government to allow the Legislature
to confer legislative powers on the
State Corporation Commission. Such a
course would eventually dwarf, and
perhaps destroy, the other branches OF
the State government. When the Con
stitution has defined its powers, he
said, the Legislature cannot go beyond
It, Therefore the action Of the Gem
eral Assembly in giving the commits
sion power to close the dock was un-
constitutional
Making the same point as that adj
vanccd on Tuesday by Judge Crunp,
Mr.. Pollard said that a dock was not
a wharf, and because the city proposes
to build wharves, Il does not follow
that dock can be closed. Judge Rnea
inquired II the petition did not allege
that the purpose of the two lnstitu-
tions is the same.
Mr.. Pollard said he had been directed
by the city to oppose the closing OF the
dock into which It had put $l,bo0O0u
at time when that amount Of money
meant ten times as much as 1t does
to-day. He concluded With a repetition