The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-11-22
THE PROVED
TRAIN SERVICE
CASE IS HEARD
ATTORNEYS FOR RAILROAD COM
MISSION AND RAILROADS APP
PEAR BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT AND ARGUE DEMURRER
OF THE COMMISSION.
Special to The Journal

Tallahassee, Nov. 20.-Before the su-
preme court yesterday was argued the
case of the Florida railroad commits
sion against the Louisville & Nashville
Railroad and the Seaboard Air Line
Railway in the matter of discontin-
uance of hauling of freight cars on
their trains between Jacksonville and
Pensacola, trains now known as their
mixed, or accommodation trains. The
railroads were represented by Hon. w.
A. Blount and Hon. w. J. Oven, and
the Florida railroad commission by
Hon. F. M. Hudson.
These railroads have been operating
and are now operating their night
trains between the above points, carry
ing freight and passengers, and con-
Stunning about eighteen hours to make
the trip between these points. The
railroad commission thought that the
travel and conditions demanded a dis
continuance of freight service on
these trains and the making of them
exclusive passenger trains with
faster schedule. This was therefore
ordered by them, said order providing
for a thirteen hour and thirty minute
schedule between these points instead
of eighteen hours. as is now being
operated. The railroad companies re-
fused to take any notice of, or to OPP
crate said order, whereupon the COM
missioners secured an alternative writ
of mandamus in the supreme court, to
which the railroad companies replied
on the oath of october. In the opinion
of counsel for the commissioners, the
answer sufficient grounds to dismiss
the mandamus, and demurred to their
answer, oral argument of which was
had before the court today.
Grounds for Defense.
Counsel for the railroads today in
their argument set up three grounds
for defense:
1. The order of the railroad COM
mission is q violation of the fourteenth
amendment to the United States con-
stitution, in that it deprives the de-
PENDANTS of property without due
process of law.
2. Said order is an interference
with interstate commerce, and. the
Florida commission is going beyond it's
jurisdiction in dealing with questions
of interstate commerce.
8. The order is unreasonable, I'M
necessary and impracticable.
The main argument offered under
the first head was that the discon-
tinuance of hauling freight on these
increase expenses, thereby not allow
ing them fair remuneration on their
investments.
Under their second head of argu-
ment. Mr.. Blount frankly admitted
that there was a question in his mind
as to whether the order was an inter-
ference with interstate commerce and
would be so held by the United States
supreme court.
So the matter was really sifted
down to the one contention, that the
order was unreasonable" and fully
three-fourths of their arguments was
taken up in arguing this point, which
had to deal with the impracticability
Of the schedule as outlined in the COM
missions order. Mr.. Blount contended
that the train into Pensacola would
pass stations this side so early that it
would be very inconvenient for pas
sengers from these points to Pensa-
cola, so much so that the travel would
decrease. and intimated that it would
be necessary to put on another train
from Florala to Pensa cola to accom-
modate the public on this end Of the
line, which it seems the l.. & N. would
be justified in doing as evidenced from
the large passenger traffic in and out
of Pensacola along this line. The Sea-
board in it's contention of the imprac-