The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-06-10
|OP IDI0N OF COURT
/ IN RAILROAD CASE
Affirms Action Of Corporation
Commission in Washington
Southern Appeal.
Especial to The imes-Dispatch.l


Wytheville. Va. June 9.-Judge
Keith. in the opinion Of the court
handed down, In the case Of tho wash
ington-Southern Railway Company, af-
firIning tho action Of the Corpora ton
commission. after reviewing the pro
deedings OF the litigating railroads.
ton Commission. and tho liking Of o
general maximum intrastate passonga,
rate or i-2 cents per mile. which has
railroads of the State, and stating thai
the short line of the appellant road.
controlled 6ol {throush stock ownershipj
peake and Ohio. the Atlantic Coast
Line, the Southern and the Richmond,
s ~ :, and Potomac Railroads.
southern connections OF these great
systems. states that the intrasta to
traiic Is meretncident to the substan- !
III business OF the company. and so
portance as to render tho ordinary
methods OF distribution of burdens and
,San, petween the interstate and in
traState business Impractical
The opinion declares that on data
!urnlshed by the appellant Itself. IL the
costs OF construction. maintenance and
on the basis OF the volume OF Inter
state and Interstate business raspec-
b nHeiy, and per cent; OF the Joint
~ would represent an utterly insuffi- .
Gent capital to build on the chenpest
pa nt, or even to maintain. any sort OF
a railroad between the terminals OF
me Washington Southern
Moreover, the opinion says Il was
aa mi ri,,,, oy counsel in argument that
intrastate travel alone would not Yield
| a fair return on the capital Invested
upon any apPortionment Of values sub
misted to the commission. This ad-
mission shows the impracticability in
tne circumstances OF this case OF max
ing a reasonable return on the capital
, nv n from intrastate traffic solely
maximum passenger rate.
ne case of Shepard against North.
efn Paciho Railroad ia referred to and
court holding that there is no con.
ten ion on the part Of the appellant
.hat It's earning from its general OPP
the maximum, fixed by the commission
are not ample to meet all lawful de.
rnands upon It and to make a fair re-
Turn turn upon the capital invested for SER
vice rendered TO the public
The record shows that in the unre-
stralneo course OF business the com
ptany adopted a lower schedule OF
state passenger service. than the rate
allowed by, the commission, which fact
alone would seem to afford a conclu-
siNc answer 10 appellants prctensions
Days Proceediusy
Court Of Appeals to-day were as fol-
Shoemaker. assignee, va. shotmak-
er's administrator; argued bv w w
BRO, for appellant. and G. w. wilson,
tor appellee. and submitted
Howard, adninistrator, rs. Gose ct
ala, and Howard ct ais. VS. Howard ct
ais, submitted on briefs
Snoemaker vs. Chapman Drug Co.:
argued by 6. B. CULLEN, and submitted
Muncy vs.. Rabnake, and Laforce vs.
+ I
Kinney, for appellant, and ". A.
Dnughtery and Roland q. Chase. for
APPELLEE. and submitted 1910 =
Douglas Land Co. VS.. Thayer CO.;
argued by P. E. Widener. for appel,
liant. and continued until tomorrow
The next CAGES to be called are as
foNows:i Slaughter We. Good ct ais. ;
Hall VS.. Graham, Sheriff vs.. Admins,
traitor ,Wampler VS.. Harrel ct al. MIL,
Ter. trustee. VS.. Town OF Pulaski, Kent
ct ais. vs.. Dobyns. Oglesby & Co. VS..
Lindsey ct ais