The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-09-25
NO RIGHT TO FIX
TRANSFER RATES
State Corporation Commission
Declines to Interfere With
Richmond Company.
COSBY PETITION DISMISSED
Baggage Transfer Companies Are
Not Public Service Cor
porations.

rates Of baggage transfer companies.
This conclusion is reached by the
commission in the case of w. G. Cosby
against the Richmond Transfer Com
pany and the railroads which have
given that concern an exclusive con-
tract to solicit baggage transfsr on
their property.
The commission argued in its optn-
Ion that a baggage transfer concern
is not q transportation or transmits
sion company nor a public service
corporation. for it is not charged with
any public duty. has no authority to
exercise the right Of eminent domain
and has no special privileges not
available to the general public.
Cannot Hold Railroad.
Practically the same case was re-
Gently decided against Cosby by
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
which said in its opinion. TO which the
State Corporation Commission indi~
Gates its concurrence: In merely
granting the exclusive privilege OF
soliciting on its trains and issuing
baggage checks at residences to one
baggage transfer company a carrier
does not undertake an additional ser
vice to the public. The carriers duty
to the public as to baggage begins
and ends in the baggage room pro-
vided by It."
transfer business in this city. set forth
that railroad officials had combined to
form Shs Richmond Transfer Com
pany. which was given the exclusive
right to solicit business in the vari
Gus stations Of the railroads. and also
given the exclusive right to exchange
its own checks for those Of the rail-
road. thus giving 1t a monopoly. Cosby
stated that he was ready to haul bag
gage for q lesser amount than that
charged by the company. which has
the monopoly Of use OF railroad prop
erty. He expr sssed himself as willing
to enter into adequate bond to safe
guard the public from loss Of baggage
committed to his charge for delivery
By its decision Of yesterday the
State Corporation Commission decides
that the petition Of Cosby Is not suf-
ficient in law. The demurrer is sus-
tanned. the prayer denied. the petition
dismissed and the proceeding removed
from the docket.
The opinion filed by the commission
Commonwealth Of Virginia, at the
relation Of
W. G. Cosby.
The Richmond Transfer Company.
Richmond, Fredericksburg and
Potomac Railroad Company. the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
Company. Southern Railway Com
pany. Seaboard Air Line Railway.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Com
pany and Old Dominion Steamship
Company.
(Opinion-Prentiss, chairman)
w. G. Cosby. who is engaged in the
baggage transfer business in the city
of Richmond. has fled his petition
against the defendant companies ask
ing for certain relief. which, SO far as
may be necessary in order to explain
the conclusions Of the commission, will
be hereinafter referred to. Each OF
the defendants has demurred to the
petition and moved to dismiss the
same
Questions substantially similar were
involved in the case OF W. G. Cosby
VS.. Richmond Transfer Company ana
others, twenty-third Interstate Com
merce Commission Reports, page u.
with reference to the transfer of bag
gage Of interstate travellers in the city
OF Richmond. That decision, which II
It's conclusions are correct. appear to
be conclusive OF the issue raised in
this proceeding.
oU0te0 Fr00 Decision.
The syllabus. which fairly states the
substance OF the opinion reada a
typographical error being first cor
rected) ~ follows:
1. II a carrier undertook to make
delivery OF passenger baggage ana to
issue baggage checks at residences for
the rate OF fare stated In its tariYs,
this would be . service over which this
commission would have Jurisdiction,
and which must. In all regards, be-
come subject TO the mandates and
prohibitions Of the act, even though
the service in whole or IN part was
not performed BY tho carrier itself.
but was rendered by some agency un-
der contract or otherwise. But in
merely granting the exclusive privi-
1ege o. soliciting on its trains and
issuing baggage checks At residences
TO one baggage transfer company Q
carrier does not undertake an addi-
tional service to the public The car
rier's duty TO the public AZ TO bag
gage begins and ends In the baggage
, rooms provided By II. Baggage trans
fe- 10 prior or subsequent to the
transportation service ~ TO which the
carrier owes to duty to the public,
and IS therefore outside the jur1sdic-
ton OF this commission.
2. No public duty - owed by . car
rier to baggage transfer agents. as
/ such. and Therefore the commission
/ finds that although the exclusive priv
ilege 90 soliciting baggage transfer
On defendants trains - given 20 the
transfer company which - controlled
( by ofscers % defendants, yet there is
no undue discrimination. since no one
/ IL given any undue advantage or Is
! subjected 20 any undue or unreason-
, able prejudice IS 20 any matter In re-
Istion 20 which the carrier owes .
duty.
WHIST CssAy Asks0 Pen
The petition contains several pray
ers for relief In substance they are:
I. That IN order Be entered D1pe'
] HYAM