Evening star., 1915-02-01
Appellate Court Sustains
Claim of Jurisdiction Made
by Utilities Board.
OPINION GIVEN ON PLEA
OF TERMINAL COMPANY
Holds That Business Conducted by
Appellant in District Is Sub
ject to Regulation.

The taxicab is a common carrier, ac-
cording to the opinion of the Court OF
Appeals of the District of Columbia
rendered today by Mr.. Justice Robb.
The decision affirms the finding of JUS
tice Stafford of the District Supreme
Court, who denied an application of the
Terminal Taxicab Company for an in
junction to prevent the public utilities
commission from assuming jurisdic-
ton over the company as public util-
ity.
I'VE think the company is common
carrier" says the appellate court.
within the scope, intent and meaning
of the public utilities act. Its business
is public and not private, and that
business should be and is subject to
reasonable regulation for the benefit
of the public"
Sustains the Commission.
The action of the appellate court sus-
tains the claim of the commission,
which sought to regulate the business
of the taxicabs and fix rates to be
charged for service.
The commission was met by claim
of counsel for the company that Its busl-
ness was that of a private liVeryman
and the right of the commission to as
sumo jurisdiction was questioned, and the
Injunction proceedings instituted on the
announcement that the public utilities
commission considered the taxicab a COM
mon carrier.
Commenting on the claim Of the com
pany, Justice Robb says: The name
be known (taxicab company. implies
that it is engaged in public and not
private business, and the vehicles
which it employs in carrying on that
business are of such known character
as to invite public patronage generally.
Moreover. this taxicab company.
through it's advertisements. holds it,
self out as an agency for public use,
for it invites patronage indiscrimin-
ately.
lie generally to apply, it has in some
instances arbitrarily chosen whom 1t
would serve, the character of its busi-
ness has not been changed.
LAS to the service at the Union sta
tion there is no pretense that it does
otherwise than serve, as under it's con-
tract and public duty it is required to
do, all persons using that station.
1T Is of no consequence that 1t does
not solicit business upon the streets OF
the city. since it is not necessary to
justify regulation of a business that it
be of a monopolistic character.
1T may be suggested, however. that
if a service extending over. three or
four city BLOCKS was required time
could be saved by telephoning for a
taxicab even although a horse-drawn
vehicle stood at the curb. This prob
ably is the real reason why 1t is not
deemed necessary to solicit business
on the streets. Nor does it matter that
a passenger is given that for which he
pays. the exclusive use Of vehicle for
the trip"
Answers Charge of Discrimination.
In reference to the claim of the COM
pany that the commission was dis
eliminating in assuming jurisdiction
over .taxicabs and not over certain
public hackmen and automobile livery
concerns, the opinion says: THE act
does not confer upon the commission
arbitrary power. 1t defines q common
carrier and all answering the terms
of that description are within the pur-
view of the act.
whether or not the commission has
erred in a given case has no bearing on
the question involved. In other words,
the question here is whether the appel
liant. and not some other corporation, Is a
common carrier?
The Terminal Taxicab Company was
represented by Attorney G. Thomas Dun
lop Corporation Counsel Syme argued
the case for the commission in both
courts.