The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-09-08
Acknowledgement Takes Cog
. nizance of Corporation Com
missions Action
FIRST CASE UNDER
NEW CONSTITUTION
Quo Warranto Proceedings
Can Be Brought by State
Officials. Commonwealth $
Attorneys or Amy Citizen

Acknowledgement Pollard yesterday
took ooxnizance of the opinion hand
ed down Thursday by Chairman Gar
sstt tn the case of the Commonwealth
awatust the Southern Railway Co.. In
which the company was fined $500
for furnishing county sheriffs with
free passes In violation Of the con-
etasut1on OF Virginia, and is consider
ing what action. II any. is warranted
axainst the officers. Under the con"
stttutYon. when pubic officials are
found guilty OF receiving free trans
portahon from a railroad company
they forfeit Office.
Thu virginia constitution states that
the attorney general, the common
wealth's attorneys or any person may
file quo wnrranto proceedings against
fictals receiving passes. The South
ern Railway Co, in answering the
charges against Il. gave the names or
ten sheriffs who received passes In
1914 and twelve who received them
at the beginning OF the present wear
Proceedings can be brought against
only such officials as have received
free passes during their present term
Of ONCE whether the attorney-gen
eral viii proceed against the officials.
or await Individual action on the part
OF the commemorative attorney OF
the reSpective counties will not be
known until Mr.. Pollard and the at
tornevs have had an opportunity to
study the case.
This is the first case Of it's kind TO
develop since the constitutional con-
vention of 1901. when the provision
nrafnsf the issuance OF free passes
10 offictals was adopted. There was
a case. however. coming under the en- :
actmert. which concerned the right OF
a railroad to issue a pass to It's EN-
nioye. who was also n member of a
CITY council The railroad won III the
proceedinEs-
The case which Chairman Garnett
has recently decided Is one where the
railroad gave sheriff a pass for SER
vices which had been or might be
fseAs,Anrea 4et tbs 80 m parry Chairman
Garuett holds that this is discrfTnina-
ton, in that the sheriff obtains free
transportation which might he great
er or less com pensation than he In
entitled to for such services SIS he may
render. The statutes OF Virginia ex-
preesly forbid any transportation com =
pany allowing person to travel over
Its lines at rate less LHaU ttldt EH2At
ed Others for contemporary service
The sherifs 10 whom passes were
sent out BY the Southern railway at
the beginning OF the present year are
as follows: Charles A Barhee. Prince
william county. Manassas. Va; w r.
ReaIes, Meckenburg county. Boydton.
Va: W. c. Bond. Orange county,
Orange. Va: r. r. Collins. Warren
county, Front Royal. Va; s. w Lee.
Creenesvii1e county, Emporia. Va; j.
Coleman Priddy. Charlotte county,
Keysvflle. Va. A. p. Shackelton,
Iunenbury county, Victoria Va: J.
w. Trmherlake. Jr. deputy sheriff..
Fauduter county. warrenton. Va r.
y, Turnbuli. Brunswick county. Law
-seneer4Ae- va HI -MAAalaE-Aai-
son county, Ellington. va: w. stan
ley woolf. Fauqnier county. Warren :
ton. Va. and ]. s. Yowel. Culpeper
county. Culpeper. Va
In the case 3ust decided by the COM
mission, action was brought at the
instance Of A. D. Kelly. of Fauquier
county, who claimed that the South
ern railway had issued pass to Mr..
WOOL. the sheriff OF his county.