The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-01-08
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
Judge Jackson Holds that 1t Has No
Right to Enforce Its Decisions,
And OverthrOws Its Rulings Compelling the
Louisville & NASHVILLE Road to Handle Cars
of Other Companies on Equal Terms.


handed down his opinion in the case of the
Kentucky and Indiana Bridge Company VS..
the Louisville g. Nashville Railroad Com
pany. Some months ago the bridge COM
pany obtained decision that the Louis
vile & Nashville must receive freight from
the company at Seventh and Magnolia
streets, Louisville. The Louisville & Nash
vile refused 20 comply, and the bridge
company asked the United States Circuit
Court TO enforce compliance. Reviewing
the facts, Judge Jackson refers to the fol-
lowing, mainly as set forth in the Louis
vile d Nashville response: The respondent
has four regular established freight-yards
In Louisville, the principal one be-
ing at Ninth street and Broadway, afford
ing ample room. The respondent does not
hold itself out as a commOn-carrier, except
for freight to be transported over it's own
lines, or to certain points for which 1t has
contracts with other roads as to through
rates, these contracts prescribing the terms
of transacting business and fixing pro
rata of expenses, as well as o. the tariff
charges. There are many points on the roads
running north of the river with which the
l.. ~ n. has such contracts, which points
are lOt embraced in the arrangements. One
of the details Of this arrangement for the
transfer of the through freights is that the
traffic coming from the north shall be in
Ninth and Broadway. All Northern roads
have equal facilities for using the regular
connections with the Ninth-street yards
except the Ohio 81 Mississippi road, which
enters the city over the Kentucky and In
diana bridge, instead of over the Louisville
bridge. as 1t formerly did. On June /,
1857, the petitioner entered into
contract. with the Louisville South
eTn railroad, leasing it's, tracks to
the Louisville Southern. The ordinance
empowering the Louisville Southern to
boIld tracks shows no authority from the
city OF Louisville to connect the tracks at
Seventh street and Magnolia avenue with
those of the respondent The Louisville a.
Nashville neither. receives nor delivers
freight at Seventh street and Magnolia
avenue. Lit has no facilities for doing so,
aud has there only right of way, sixty six
feet wide. The Kentucky 81 Indiana has
not near so much. The point is more than
a mile from either of the respondents two
nearest freight yards. No interchange of
cars can be made there without subjecting
Inconvenience. The cars will have to be
taken by the respondent to one of its freight
yards In order to be put in place in making
up the trains. The making up of trains of
cars at Seventh and Magnolia would neces-
state the employment of car-inspector,
who would have to be there night and day
if freight were taken in less than carloads
sheds and platforms would have to be built
and the freight would have to be rehandled
at the company's regular freight depot. All
such interchange between the Louisville 81
Nashville and other roads is made the sub
sJect of contract and agreement about the
division of expenses and the rate of COM
pensatiol.
As to the question of jurisdiction, Judge
jackson stated that the mode of procedure
before the lnterstate-commerce Commits
sion conceded in many respects with the
usual course of procedure before the courts;
but the commission is wanting in several of
the powers of a court 1t falls far short of
flnal tribunal. An action in court is nee
reports are In the nature of report by a
referee. 1t possesses neither judicial power
nor the power to enforce its recommends
tons. The court holds that it is not pre-
cluded from lnQuiring iptomattersr reported
on by the commission, nor is it bound by
Its determinations. The question of this
courts jurisdiction was raised by the re-
spondent, and the court decided that the
federal courts. Going back to the facts,
the court declared that petitioner has facil-
tiles for reaching the transfer yards of the
respondent by two routes. The petitioner
does not issue bills of lading to any South
ern points, or to Cincinnati. The roads over
which shipments are made furnish the cars
bill the ight and collect the charges from
the shipper. On the law and facts the court
First-That the Interstate-commerce
Commission has not final jurisdiction in
this case, and that this court had jurisdic-
ton.
Second-That this court was not merely
70 enforce the Judgment of the commission,
but was to decide the case as if it were a
new proceeding.
Third-The petitioner was not common
carrier under the provisions of the inter-
.state-commerce act. The petitioner is only
a transfer agent as to the freight offered at
Seventh street and Magnolia avenue. He
concurs in the dissenting opinion of Com
missioner Sehoonmaker as to this question.
The tolls that bridge collects are not a
charge for transporting freight. The Ohio
IL Mississippi must be regarded as the op-
orator of the bridge for the freight the
Ohio d Mississippi carries, and the tolls
structure. The bridge company does trans
fer some cars, but for this it is only a
switchman or transfer agent. AS
tie exchange at Magnolia avenue
wonld benefit the bridge company
and injure the respondent, it would give
the petitioner an undue advantage over
other roads If its claim were enforced, and
would be to discriminate in its favor.
The fourth point of the opinion is that
proper place for the transfer of business,
and the petitioner cannot force respondent
TO receive freight there.
The fifth question Is practically the same
thing.
The sixth, and last, is to the general effect
That 1t is not incumbent on q railroad COM
pany 10 exchange with all other roads. For
through business it is on the same terms as
those which exist between it and cOmpa-
gy with which it has contract for such a
change of business.
The bridge company was granted an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court.
The Demurrage Question.
The laws of Indiana are such that the
roads cannot legally collect demurrage on
the detention of cars, consequently the To-
cal freight agents are casting about to get
some method which will be legal for col
iecting damages when cars are detained on
side-track beyond reasonable time. Yes
terday afternoon the local agents met with
the general freight agents of several of the
roads, TO talk the matter over, and it was
made apparent that the only way the mat
ter could be reached was by collecting de-
murrage under the name of switching
charges, or for the use of car. The fol-
lowing gentlemen were appointed a COM
lnittee to draft plan for bringing about
the desired end: George Brecount, of the
L., N. A. 81 c.; Robert Geiger, of the j.. NJ.
n l.; William Sullivan, of the c., l.. st. l..
~ C., and Il. j. Helm. of the Bee-line. The
committee will report TO the superintend-
ents of the several roads, who convene i'm
this CITY to-day, and If the plan proposed