The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-03-01
FEARS REDUCTION
IN THROUGH RATE
Washington Southern Claims 1t
Does Not Want to Burden
Virginians.
ASKS THREE CENT FARE
Much Travelled Line Presents
It's Contention Before
Supreme Court.
ASKS THREE CENT FARE

We had rather haul Virginians free
to points within this State than to
nave our basic passenger rate reduced
ter, attorney for the Washington
i Southern Railway Company, closing his
argument for u scent rate yesterday
before the Supreme Court of Appeals.
The record shows said Mr.. Carter, that
tie company is carrying people for a
great deal less than this sum, and is
ready to grant low round trip rates.
but it fears the loss of hundreds Of
thousands of dollars in the event its
through rate is cut by the Interstate
Commerce Commissions
This case the first to he heard at
7 he torn OF tho Supreme Court witch
began yesterday. is an appeal from a
decision of the State Corporation Com
mission The Washingt on Southern,
the northern portion of the Richmond
WASHINGTON line, asked the commission
Tor permission to increase It's intra
state passenger rate from to cents
per mile. The 2-cent rate has obtained
ever since the first reduction put in
effect on all the principal roads nv
ne commission and it was not party
10 the proceedings which eliminated
| in All increase TO Pig cents on In.
other systems.
| Given i-2-Ccnt Rate
J When the railroad. more than year
ago, made application for Il accent rate.
me commission granted it the same
i privilege as enjoyed by the other roads
+, TO charge IL cents. With this il
was not satisfied, taking the appeal
Assistant Attorney General Richard
| y. Davis made the principal argument
for the Commonwealth lie said that
| the difference between the rate allowed
oS the commission and that asked for.
| py the road which is 1-2 cent Der
mile. would only not about SIG. 900 a
, year To the road, for it applies. or
course, OH interstate Journeys alone
Z, VT. Davis look figures used by tho
corporation Commission as the per
! centagc of expense to be charged H.
| intrastate business to show that the
business or the road In this State would
| be sufficient TO pay its part Of the
expenses ana Of interest on the bonds,
ana still TO yield profit. In Other
! words. he did no. think the com
pahS method Of calculating its pro
rata expenses. by which it endcayor,s
TO show that it's purely intrastatc busi-
ness is done at a loss, wer. quite
correct. s
Attorney General Samuel w. vii
iams spoke briefly. calling attention
TO the position of the matter as a
legislative act.
! Fears Reduction.
| Concluding the argument, MIR. Carter
SAID the contention Of Mr.. Davis was
| due largely 70 cognlzance OF the ca
| made IN 1907, which was not now be-
fore the court. He asserted the com
paanS dld not care about the $4,000
ia year mentioned by Mr.. Davis, hut
was concerned in the hund. eds of thou
sahns II might lose. Replying 10 a
| question by Judge Keith MIR. Carter
salo he believed the Interstate Com.
!nerce Commission would order n re-
auction In this roads par1 Of through
BUSINESS in proportion to III. intrastate
rate charge in Virginia. The purely
| intrastate t'afic. eliminating the situa-
non at Alc&andria. where many pass
snSe rs sava money by buying tickets
! only In this State, was but or per
| cent. OF the total receipts OF the road
he still contended that the intrastate
! BUSINESS is done at loss. Judge
! Buchanan asked Mr.. Carter if a 3-cent
rate would make up the deficit, and
nc said 1t would not. In reply to a
question by Judge Buchanan as to why
ne ala not ask for rate which would
make this class of business carry it.
self he said the aim was to secure the
basic 3-cent rate The case was sub
mitted TO the court.
| Other Cases
| The case of +. C. Thornton. the
Charlotte county bank cashier who is
| under penitentiary sentence, was re-
moved to Wytheville. and will be heard
there in June
| The case of Lambert against Jenkins
was argued by William L. Royal for
! the plaintiff in error and by c. B.
I Garnet for the defendant In error and
submitted.
Next cases 10 be called: Newman VS.
McComb; Arminius Chemical Company
! VS.. Whites Administrators; Manson &.
Shell VS.. Rawlingss Executor ct ais.
i Arminius Chemical Company VS. Ian
I drum; Schwab VS.. Washington Luna
lark Company; Norfolk and Ocean
! View Railway Company vs. Consoli-
| dated Turnpike Company ct ais; Baker
at ais vs.. Berry Hill Mineral Springs
| Company; Norfolk Fire Insurance Com
| pany vs.. Talley. being Nos. 49, SO, SO.
| o. GO, GO, e. and IS. passed cases on
the argument docket