White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1923-03-04

transaction IN dispute Dut ofei ehe
precedent his acquiescence would es-
tablish. It may be FAR to assume tha'
1t would not be a wild guess that he
is saying to himself, Am l running
this railroad or arc the other fellows
running it,"
Prior to 1887 there was no sue
cessful attempt to deny the right oil
any railway management to fix 1ts
own rates, schedules or any other
part Of its program or Management
other than some few state enactments
upon the matter of fares. Some few
middle western states had liked
3-cent maximum fare and some 9th
ers 4 cents. That was the limit that
railway supervision attained in the
eyes of the people as seer through
their agencies in the form of federal
and state governments Nor did the
enactment OF the interstate com
MERGE law for several years assert
the right of the government to regu-
late the service of the railways to
any appreciable extent, this having
come about gradually by later enact
ments placing all but carte blanche
powers in the hands of the interstate
commerce commission.
When these powers were fully de-
veloped the railways had their at
tention quite busily ~engrossed in
larger matters, Directing to features
of tie Hepburn law of Roosevelt's
time and La Follette's later demand
for physical valuations TO be used IN
contrast with book values as a basis
for rates, which plan was taken over
bodily by President Taft and written
into law. In those years agitation
against the railways was so strong
that they probably did not conceive
1t to be polite to demur to what
gradually came to be a legal princi-
pie that where the public gives the
railways the rights close akin to
those of eminent domain to make
use of public and private property as
rights of way and otherwise, the
right to supervise and regulate rests
in the government or state as the
extent of the line may make the ar
gument apply.
This, then, has become a recog-
nized principle of transportation law,
SO conceded BY railway arrangements.
II is resisted at times in particular
cases, a sample being that of two
years ago when Mr.. Zurich wen a
contest for a day train service after
the local company had put into ef-
feet a night schedule. In that case
1t is not the understanding that the
railway resisted the right of the pub
lie service commission to designate
the schedule, but that 1t made ita
appearance before the commission
for the purpose of persuading it tina:
the night service was more in the
interest of it's patrons than the dap
one, and when It lost the battle ii
gracefully took its medicine and
obeyed the mandate Of the regulating
agency of the state. The public ser.
vice commission.
But in the present issue there is
new ground to be broken. 1t is the
question of whether or not the state
may compel a railway to inaugurate
a service not in effect, or to rein
state one previously in effect but
suspended supposedly for a tempo
rary period, which the company
claims to he permanent. Is such a
demand one coming within the pur-
view of the states right to regulate
or supervise? Can the state compel
a public utility to initiate a service,
and especially can it do so when such
service would be furnished at a loss?
,The railway management has CIV
en- its word that 1t will not accede to
the demand of citizens TO grant such
a service; in other words that 1t re-
serves the right to run the road to
the full extent that such a right has
not been taken away by law and tho
question involved is whether the
commission. and after it the courts,
will determine that this Is a matter
coming within the states right to
regulate and supervise, or Is II with
in the private rights to elect as to
what service 1t shall give?
If the former Is the decision of
the state commission the railway
management has promised that the
question shall be tested in the courts
to the extent of carrying 1t to the
supreme court of the United States,
and further, that pending such final
adjudication it will refuse TO grant
the daily train service between Ely
and Cobre, ven though that be an
unlimited period of years.
1t has disclosed that its contention
will be that compelling operation at
a loss constitutes taking away prop
erty without process of law and
thereby runs counter to the federal
constitution thus raising 4 federal
question permitting such appeal
1t may be urged in opposition that
when a railway once inaugurates a
certain service and patrons by being
induced by such service to make
their residence at a certain place, the
~