The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-10-19

ton of the James River and Kanawha
Canal at Richmond which has not boon
abandoned. and the abandonment Of
which the legislature has by implica-
ton forbidden. except in the manner
provided for i'll the act of March 10,
1910. This is the act which empowers
this commission to authorize the clos
ing of docks under certain conditions.
Acts 1910. y. 3SS.
Jurisdiction lis Clear.
The jurisdiction of the commission
however. does not depend upon wheth-
Ell this property is technically canal,
because the original dock charter
makes II public highway" and the
Jurisdiction OF the commission is
equally clear over persons using or
occupying public highway in u man
ncr not permitted to the general pub
nc. ioll1rds Code. section l IA %
1924 Coz CD.
The constitutional provisions and
statutes enacted pursuant thereto re-
Lifting to public service corporations
provided now remedies for old rights
and new. tribunal. this commission i'm
which to assert such rights. There
fore. because remedial In their nature
both the constitutional provisions and
the statutes should be construed lib
u.
according to their true intent and pur.-
pose
1t is evident that this property is
canal. public water highway, n
work of internal Improvement and u
public utility. If owned by a corpora
ton the Jurisdiction of the commission
could not be questioned 1t seems TO
us equally evident beyond a doubt that
the statutes referred to give the COM
mission the same jurisdiction over in
dividuals who claim and own such u
public utility as the successor OF q
corporation, as 1t would have over the
corporation to whose title they sue
ceed for both in the Constitution and
in the statute the language seems to
be almost exhausted in the effort to
make 1T plain that the same provisions
OF law which apply to corporations en-
gagged in the public service apply az
well to persons engaged in the public
service. or holding property which has
been dedicated to the public service
1t seems clear to us that to sustain
such narrow construction as IS con-
tended for by the defendants is to
stick in the bark and to defeat the
manifest purpose and intent of the
law. We conclude, therefore, that
these defendants. as persons owning
this dock property, are under tho
jurisdiction of this commission, be-
cause they are subject to the laws of
this State governing transportation
companies. canal companies, works II
internal Improvement and works , of
public service, as well as because they
are persons owning and occupying II
public highway in a manner not per-
mitted to the general public
Required by Law.
The act OF February 81, 1879. uu-
thorizins the Richmond and Allegheny
Railroad Company TO buy the James
River and knnawha Canal property, By
providing for an undiminished supply
of water in the canal from Bosher's
dam to tidcwater. and by prohibiting
any increase in the rate of dockagc
by plain irresistible implication, we
think required the dock to be kept
open. but when 1t was subsequently
proposed to convey the property to the
TriEE Company this plain and irresis-
tible implication was. by the General
Assembly, enlarged into an express dc,
claration in the act of February 10.
1901. whereby. in addition to the condt-
tons imposed in the act of February
u. 1879, it was provided that the Trigs
Company should be regarded in law as
the successor OF the Richmond Dock
Company and the James River and
hanawha Company, and that the sue
cessors and assigns of the Trigg Com.
pany, as respects the Richmond dock.
should be subject to all of the duties
imposed upon the said Richmond Dock
company Still further TO emphasize
this legislative purpose IL was provid.
ed that the William II. Trigg Company
should be made party to the convey
ance for the purpose of expressing its
acceptanc on behalf of itself. its sue.
cesors and assigns. OF the duties and
obligations referred to and then to be
assumed and performed. So thar by
this transaction these duties and obli-
cations assumed the form Of AN e.-
press contract which. In our Judgment,
was intended to bind. and does bind,
the defendants, the successors in title
of the TriSg Company. So that when
the Trisg Company undertook to con-
vey the property ii could only convey
the title which 1t possessed subject to
all of the burdens imposed BY mat
contract The public use thus attach
ed to the property. in our Judgment
follows 1t. and the Chancery Court of
Richmond could only sell and did only
sell the property subject TO such public
uses In our opinion this use SO at
taches to the property itself under the
various acts referred to, and under the
contract OF the Trigg Company. that
1t can only be discharged tnercfrom
By authority of the General Assembly
Of Virginia.
Duty 20 Repnir u.
we have neither reviewed nor re-
ferred TO the cases cited by counsel.
hec7use VIC thinl; that all of the issues
larry arising under the pleadings in
ms proceeding are definitely settled
by the Constitution and statutes of
TINS state relating TO public service
corporations. The cases are instruc-
i've aud not in conflict with the writ
ten law OF the State. but IL such con
tiict exists the Constitution and sta
tut"s are controlling
me evidence shows that the defend
ants are negligent in the performance
of their duty to the public, Imposed up
on them as owners of the property by
the statutes and contract referred to.
IN faihns to repair the entrance or
approach to the canal or dock. having
permitted the gate of the Eastern lock
1..a.a