Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-02-09
DECISION GIVEN
IN CANAL CASE
fContinued rom pase II
Grounds for Decision.

Grounds for Decision.
In it's memorandum containing
the decision the Utility Commission
states its grounds as follows
/. The charter rights OF the Della
ware and Raritan Canal Company,
as construed by the attorney gener-
ais office. preclude the regulation OF
tolls thereon either by the state
legislature or by this commission so
long 3 said tolls do not exceed the
maxima named I'll fuSaaHsI com-
pany's charter. Control w the
tolls, except where they exceed the
limits set by the charter, can be SCI
cured only with the canal company's
assent, or that OF its lessee.
q. A classification of tolls upon
canaiborne traffic. II reasonable, is
not an unjust or improper method OF
charging for the use of the canal.
s. "A uniform charge per ton-mfle
for all canal-borne traffic, irrespec-
tive 81 tie weight, hulk. value or
other relevant considerations, would
be less reasonable than a properly
constructed classification of tolls.
A. The temporary closing OF q
canal when required by the necessity
for repairs otherwise impracticablei
and to the extent only OF such neces-
sity to make repairs, is J~ustiiahle
likewise when seasonal conditions
render traffic virtually impossible
the closing of q canal Is not unrea-
sonable.
The commission shows that Apri
III, 1911, Assistant Attorney Genera
Gaskill in replying to a letter from
Senator George s. Silxer, OF Middle.
sex, q member of the senate commit
tee to investigate the canal, wrote
that the canal company was charter,
ed In 1880 and that there is NJ
Preservation to the state in this char
ter Of q right to alter. amend or re.
peal, in whole or In part, any OF itl
provisions, nor was there at the timt
In the constitution any reservation o;
such right to the legislature In gen
eral.
State Has No Control of Tolls.
Mr.. Gaskill held, therefore, tina
the state had no control over tn,
tolls on the canal as long as the,
were maintained within the chartel
provisions.
From this conclusion OF the ofie1
of the attorney general. the memor
andusn says, counsel for the New
Brunswick Board OF Trade suggested
a possibility of escape. The conten
ton In brief was that the maxinll
named In the canal company's char
ter were covering both tolls for us
OF the canal and charges for the car
rage OF property for persons by tn
canal company as carrier on 1t
own boards; and that said maxim
does not preclude this co5nmiss1oi
from regulating the tolls The It'll
ity Commission says that upon care
full tnsstfon It finds this con
strucrlon OF the charter or tbs cans
company untenabie.
classification Of Tolls.
Discussing the classification O
canal tolls, the board says It is Q
1.-THE opinion that = reasonable claEel
hcation Is more Just than q uniforr
charge for ten-mile. Continuing o
this point, the board says:
1.-THE reason and the warrant 10
toll ciassiicAtions are found III cor
alterations ~effecting the Telatir
value OF water-cArriage TO shipper
OF different kinds OF wares. Sur
pose two articles of freight. equal
weight and bulk, are awaiting ca
riage h water cmZ h
same starting point to one and th
same destination. One Of the tw
articles ID worth $500, and th
other 500. yaiuing each at the pair
Of origin. On arriving at the sam
A - - %Z