The Washington herald., 1914-03-04
TAXI FIRMS HIT
BY court Ruling
Associate Justice Stafford De-
clares Them Subject to
Public Utilities Law.
APPEAL WILL BE MADE
Terminal and Federal Companies Ar
que They Are Not Common Car
ners and Will Fight.

The Public Utilities Commission scored
an important point in Its hight on the
alleged exorbitant rates Of the Terminal
and Federal Taxicab companies when.
late yesterday afternoon, Justice Stafford.
in the District Supreme Court. dismissed
bills of complaint filed by these two COM
panies, and ruled that they are subject
to the public utilities law, and come with
in regulatory supervision both as to rates
and service
While on the face of il this decision
appears in the light of a victory for the
commission. II means. in reality, only an
other postponment, another delay In the
final solution Of the question Of taxicao
rates, which first was raised by The
Washington Herald more than year ago
by the publication of reports to the effect
that the taxicab companies were charging
exorbitant prices for their services.
Decide TO Make Appeal.
Late last night il was learned that the
two taxicab companies will take the case
10 the District Court Of Appeals.
Subsequent I, the publication in The
Washington Herald of certain complaints
against alleged ''overcharging" ON the
part of the taxicab companies. the COM
panies were asked by the District Com
missioners to furnish them certain in
formation regarding their business. par
ticularly in regard TO prices. This they
refused TO do.
As the controversy stands now. il is
based on the question as to whether the
companies in question are common car
riers. Corporation Attorney Syme has
held that they are, and yesterdays de-
cision in the Supreme Coure sustains
his ruling. The corporations. on the
other hand. charge discrimination and
base their arguments chiefly on the as
sertion that they are not common car
riers and therefore do not come within
the commissions jurisdiction.
What Is Common Carrier."
As predicted in The Washington Her.
aid ssme weeks ago, the whole case ulti-
mateH will develop into a demand upon
the highest tribunal to define the term
common carrier more Cearly than il
is defined at present. That there is
considerable ground for such a demand,
is conceded by some of the most promi-
nent members If the District bar.
On the other hand. il such a new defini-
ton s rendered by the Supreme Court Of
tho United States. and this, II can be
predicted safely, will not be lin the near
future" it is bound to affect other cor
porstions besides the two concerns in
question; in fact, it may be expected
to Rvolutionize common carrier legisla-
tor not Vnly in the District but
Throughout the country.
JIstice Stafford's decision yesterday
afternoon came at the conclusion of an
allday hearing. The court explained
that the law in the case was SO plain
that there was no necessity for his TAX
irg it under ad 5ement An order dis
Missing the bills of complaint filed by
tie Federal and Terminal Taxicab COM
Rnies will be signed today
,r-umeuts for Defendants.
Z George T. Dunlop and Samuel Hayden,
tpr the taXicab companies, argued that
they were not common carriers within
the meaning either Of the common Law
or of the public utilities law. and that
therefore they were not subject to the
regulation and control Of the Public
I-tiIities Commission. They argued that,
as the companies had contracts with
hotels, thcaters and the Terminal Com
.pany and others, limiting their service to
patrons and guests, and did not publicly
solicit on the street. their business was
private and not public.
Conrad H. Syme, general counsel for
the Public Utilities Commission, took the
position that the term common carrier
as used in the public utilities law in
cIuded, under the terms of this law, not
only All common carriers at conHlon ld"'
but also all persons and corporations en-
gaget in the public transportation OF
persons or property in the District OF
Columbia.
"a Public Necessity"
He insisted that the public utilities Law
simpy added to, and augmented, the
printples of the common law now in
force. and that where any utility used
in tie conveyance of persons or property
became of such consequence as to be-