Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-19
EXPECT DECISION TO-DAY
ON STATUS Of J|TNEY BUS
Judge Crump VIII Pass on Power
Company's Prayer for
Injunction.
MARYLAND TACKLES PROBLEM
General Attorney Advises Public Ser
vice Commission OF That State
Tint Jitney Is Common Carrier,
Subject to It's Regulation.

Subject to It's Regulation.
Auto bus operators and street rail-
| way authorities await with interest
! the decision OF Judge Beverly r. Crump.
! OF the Law and Equity Court on the
prayer OF the Virginia Railway and
| Power Company for an injunction to re-
| strain two jitney bus companies OF this
city from using the streets without first
! obtaining the right to such use from
| the municipal authorities, in the man
ner prescribed b. law for common car
:iers.
The petition was nled with Judge
| Crump last Monday. After n hearing
! on Wednesday Judge Crump announced
shat he would take the matter under
| advisement and render n decision in "A
few days. IT IS understood that his
! opinion viii be handed down day
The chief point at Issue is whether
| the business o: operating jitney buses
! IL like enterprise" to the business Of
! operating street railways and other
public utilities within tho meaning OF
/ ;hc constitutional provision requiring
such utilities to secure franchises from
! the towns and municipalities OF the
state before making use OF the streets
and alleys
IT Is the contention of the petitioners
| that the jitncy bus Is true common
! carrier In the same sense that n street
car Is IA common carrier. and that the
| iitney should not, therefore, be ex-
! cmpted from tax burdens and rcguln-
| lions imposed by law on street rail-
ways. The opposition takes the stand
! that titneys differ in no material way
! rom private automobiles or taNicabs
and cannot be subjected to regulations
/ which arc not imposed on their r.
| hiclcs. too.
Judge Crump's decision on the iitne,
! question Will have an important bear
Ina . Ia .tsl
now pending before the Ordinance Com
| nittce which seeks TO regulate the Jt-
ney bus business by imposing a license
tax and requiring each car in the jitney
| bus service To execute an indemnity
bond for the protection OF passengers
! injured through the negligence OF jt
ney drivers
The decision will At the same time
,, be one OF the few court expressions now
available on the legal status OF the
| jitncy. While laws and ordinances
without number have been enacted
seeking to regulate tho ji;ncy bus traf-
| Nc the records so far show compare
| lively few opinions from the courts OF
the country, on the several disputed
| points which have come TO the front
with titney operations.
In view of the forthcoming decision
| or Judge Crump. II is interesting
note that william Cahcll Bruce, gcnerA
counsel Of the Maryland Public Ser.
vice Commission. in an opinion trans
| united 10 the commission Friday, adj
| rised II that titncy busscs are common
carriers. and, therefore, subjec; TO the
| Jurisdiction OF the commission with
respect TO safety and adequacy OF SER
wee, just AS are steam or electric cars.
Mr.. Bruce's opinion so CONSTITUTES the
public service law OF Maryland that
the Public Service Commission OF the
| state may take steps to require jltney
buses TO operate during the lean" az
we'll as the "fai" hours; TO operate over
! certain reasonably defined routes; TO
maintain the cars in safe condition. and
| TO limit the number OF passengers TO
such n number as may be carried in
safety.
Speaking broadly of the commission.
power Of regulation, Mr.. Bruce said:
I'm my opinion, 1.-THE jitney bus--is
subject TO tho jurisdiction and author
lily of the commission in every respect
that the steam car or the electric car
Is, except so far essential differences
OF structure and operation necessarily
limit the application to 1t Of provisions
of the Public Service Commission law
relating to the latter.
/ PROVISIONS FOR REGULATION
APPLY TO JITNEY BUSES
| An OF these provisions looking to
SAFETY and adequacy of service are
manifcstly as fully applicable In n legal,
and in measurabiy practical sense
power the commission to subject jitney
| buSses to some settled system Of In
specion; to require the owner Of such
busses to operate only vehicles safe and
serviceable in point OF construction,
equlp ment, state OF repair and manage
ment; to require such owners TO operate
their vehicles in such n wcll-ordered
| and systematic way az to best promote
the public security and convenience,
anu 10 prohibit such owners from over
nj inln
lapsins into any other dangerous or
Negligent practices Of such n chara cter
AS to imperil the public safety or to
| impair the public comfort"
Iho Public Service Commission of
Maryland corresponds in its general
powers to the State Corporation Com
mission OF Virginia. which exercises
control, In the manner described by
mo Constitution and State laws over
All pubic service and other corporate
, bodies in the Commonwealth In the
case of the Maryland commission. how
ever, It's jurisdiction over automobile
carriers was definitely fixed by an act
of 1914 charging the term Common
carrier" to include all automobile
transportation companies and ali per
sons or associations Of persons. whether
incorporated or not. operating motor
vehicles for public use in tho convey
ance OF persons or property.
titney bus ordinance just passed by
III" 10y Souiicii Oh savannah requires
each jitney to pay an annual license
TAX or $40 for each passenger capacIty.
and to give an indemnity bond of SIS. 900
This bond Is not required to be given
with surety company, but NAV be
personal or secured by real estate.
The savannah ordinance does not re-
quire the 5itneys to run on schedule
! time. but does require the cars to run
along stated routes. Machines placed
In service on one route are not per-
mitted TO Shift to another to get tho
beneht OF increased travel in that sec