The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-04-08
GIVES REASONS
FOR ITS RULING
Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion's Opinion in Cosby Case
Received by Lawyers.
QUESTION OF PUBLIC DUTY
Transportation Problem Not In
VOWED in Fight Between
Baggage Rivals.

In the opinion received by law
yers yesterday tho Interstate Com
nrercc Commission sets forth in de-
tail the line of reasoning it. followed
in rendering Its decision against w.
G. Cosby in the suit %: the latter
against tho Richmond Transfer com
3any. The bill of complaint was filed
by CoShys attorneys October 3, 1911.
and asked the commission To restrain
the various railroad companies en-
rerinE the city. from granting to the
Richmond Transfer Company the on
elusive privilege of soliciting business
on their trains and in their dcpots.
and of issuing baggage checks at the
residences of prospective passengers.
The commission ruled That ii. had
no Jurisdiction in the matter. Bag
Eago transfer. it held, is prior or sub
aeauent to the transportation service
ms ito which the carrier owes n duty
30 the public and is therefore out
sido the jurisdiction of the commits
zion.
No Undue Advantage.
On the point of alleged unjust dis
elimination, the opinion speaks rs
follows:
mo public duty is owed by carrier
10 baggage transfer agents, as such.
and therefore tho commj ssiOn finds
that. although the exclusive privilege
oc soliciting baggage transfer on de-
PENDANTS trains is given to ono trans
Ier company, Which Is control,"i! Ivy
officers of defendants. yet there Is no
undue discrimination, since no Que -
r.ver any undue advantage or rs sal
jccte6 to any undue or unreasonable
prejudice as TO any matter in .r'ation
10 which the carrier owes IA duty
ui ~ f,f
roads TO grant exclusive cab and trans
t. privileges as long as they were not
un.ta Sonablc or unnecessary, tho com
plt inants urged that the true test of
the legality of any preference Is whoth-
o or not tho preference results in the
reasonable service and accommodation
of the public. III this respect, it was
claimed. the arrangement was fail
IRE because the favored company had
iakcE advantage OF the monopoly TO
en:crcc a higher scncdulc of charsts
then maintained 70 rthc same service
o. competing companies.
Has No Jurisdiction.
The fact that railroad COMPANY
makes an exclusive contract. under
Which the soliciting OF baggage on IS
tcins and within its dcpotS Is Grant.
ei &c one agent does not. in the opir-
io': OF the commission. mean the as
sumntion by the railroad of a new
e'ifitc OF INC recognition OF an ohli.A
tier TO perform such n service sui,.sn-
quent 10 the delivery of he baggage at
KS own depot. II there was a dut, i'm
n6sed by law upon the railroad to pro.
20 such service. then and then Dnl
II holds. would such service cone uu-
&C. governmental control In III. an
seHce OF such duty. arising either m
der statute, common law. or custom.
ti1 commission holds that it has no
Jurisdiction
II Is as much beyond our power"
reads The opinion. TO order a rail
rtau 10 give the Cosby Transfer an On.
pe'tunity TO bid against the Rich.
fnfnd Transfer Company for tie priv.
iest OF soliciting on trains, as II =,
oe!ond our power to comnel a rrii.
i roaH 10 laaco it's fruit vendcra' priv
SO up a, auction for neither one i;
.iansportation undr The act and over
neither one have we juriaS.ict,on.r
attorneys for the complainant b,va
hhr onnced their intention TO CO -. ~
ehse 10 the State Corporation C3m,nIs.
sacn and, falling Satisfactory nd,,ss :
r ,"Int 'hofe. 10 take i, to The STAT,