The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1919-06-18

| The state railroad and public utili.
ties commission, composed OF A. b
Enloe. ii. II. Hannah and George
| WEIGH, in a decision rendered Sat
urday allowed the Memphis Street
Railway company an emergency In.
crease In street car fares from
cents to 8 cents. Seven cents was
asked, with an additional l cent fol
transfer. The decision was given by
Enloe and Hannahfi Mr.. Welch dis.
senting.
Excerpts from the opinion arc
printed herewith as follows:
| 1.-The receivers of the Memphis Street
| Railway company, 7. ii. Tutwiler AND
| Frank s. Efgin, acting under authority
| from the Judge OF the United States
| district court for the western division
| OF the western district OF Tennessee
| filed before this commission their petit
| ton for emergency relief. to be given
| by granting them permission to increase
| fares on the lines OF The Memphis
| Street Railway company.
Petitioners ask for authority Ia
charge, instead of the charges now
| made, cash fare OF cents. upon the
same car between any two points upon
the railway of the Memphis Street
Railway company, and / cent cash
fare for each transfer Issued to any
passenger paying a 7-cent cash fare
the use OF such transfer to be gov
erned by the conditions now in effect
the charge herein proposed to continue
in effect for such time as the railroad
and public utilities commission shall
determine.
The petition filed in the United States
district court, which fully sets forth
the reasons urged in support Of this
application. was made an exhibit to
the petition. The applicants prayed
for emergency relief and that the
charges proposed be not fixed perma-
nently, but to remain effective until
the losses heretofore sustained during
the war period, have been measurably,
II not entirely, recouped, and until there
Is material change In the cost of rem
dering efficient service to the public of
Memphis and vicinity.
THE attorneys for the city OF Mem
phis, on receiving notice of this pro-
ceeding, filed a bill in part two of the
chancery court Of Davidson county for
an injunction, pending the decision of
the chancellor on the merits of the bill.
which attacked the conStitut ionality of
the act of the Legislature. creating the
railroad and public utilities commits
sion. The attorney general for the
and appeared before the chancellor in
defense of the Jurisdiction Of the COM
mission. and in the constitutionality OF
the act. under which the commission is
proceeding.
AFTER Z full hearing the chancellor
held the act constitutional and sus-
tanned the jurisdiction and authority
OF the commission. Thereupon, attor-
neys for the city of Memphis filed the
objection and protest" of the city of
Memphis, based upon the issues in
volved in the litigation in the chancery
court. The commission over-ruled the
objection and protest and gave the city
of Memphis the right to answer the pc
tition, Attorneys for the city of Mem
phis then filed their answer to the pc
tition, denying that the proposed in
creased fare is proper and reasonable.
THE respondent does not admit the
averments of the receivers of the Mem
phis Street Railway company, either as
to the character of indebtedness of said
cause of the alleged financial distress
of said street railway company. Re-
spondent does not admit alleged in
crease in wages, but demands proof of
same. Respondent denies the accuracy
of statements of the company as to the
duced thereby, and demands proof of
any of these matters that may be made
the basis of any relief, sought by said
receivers. Respondent denies THAI the
street car service in Memphis cannot
be brought to normal and maintained
abled to exact for the service higher
fares than are now being paid, and in
sists that the revenues are now show
ing a marked increase over those OF
1918, and that the cost of material is
beginning to decline. Respondent charges
that the bonds and the Indebtedness
of the company, shown by the exhibits
filed by the receivers herein. exceed in
amount the value of its properties, so
that the holders of such obligations
cannot properly demand or expect, at
the expense of the public a return upon
their investments. Respondent admits
that the board of commissioners for the
city of Memphis declined to give the
Memphis Street Railway company an in
creased fare. although they gave the
matter much consideration. The an
swer sets out the ordinances of the
city of Memphis, under which 1t is
claimed the Memphis Street Railway
company entered into a contract with
the city of Memphis, limiting fares to
five cents. Respondent states that this
commission is without power or jurls-
diction to increase fares, as asked by
the receivers of said Memphis Street
Railway company, because OF said
contract existing between respondent
and said company and maintains that
"if q true Interpretation of Chapter 40.
of the acts of 1919 be such as to I'M
dertake to authorize this commission
to so increase said rates. then said act
is unconstitutional and void. because
violative of section 2, of article l. OF the
constitution of Tennessee. which pro
vides No retrospective law. or law
impairing the obligation of contracts,
shall he made And also violates sec
ton 10, article /, of the constitution OF
the United States, which provides. NO
state shall pass any law 1mpairlng the
obligation of contracts and section 1
of article IA of the amendments of the
constitution of the United States, which
provides as follows No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunitles or
citizens of the United States; nor shall
any state deprive any person of life
liberty or property without due process
of law, or deny to any person within
its jurisdiction equal protection OF the
law "
'Respondent asserts that the present
fares charged by said street railway
company are sufficient to pay operating
expenses. and a reasonable return upon
the value of the property.
"This being the first case arising
under the public utilities act of this
state, the commission deemed 1t prudent
and advisable to consult the attorney
general for the state, on the legal prop
ositions involved. and to be guided by
his opinion in the matter. In response
the. attorney general said:
"I have examined the briefs filed by
counsel on both sides before you In
addition to these I have called upon
them for additional authorities and
briefs. and all of which has been serv-
iceahle in this investigation. I have
further examined the New JERSEY
statute and the opinion of the supreme
court constructing and holding that
emergency relief can he had Hereunder.
As this opinion is quoted from quite ex-
tensively in the briefs before you, l will
not here repeat it.