The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-04-05
AFFAIRS OF THE RAILWAYS.
The Grand Trunk Before the Interstate
Commission.

The Grand Trunk Before the Interstate
Commission.
WASHINGTON, April 4.-The Interstate
Commission to-day began the
hearing in the case of the Grand Trunk
Railway Company. of Canada, upon a
charge, contained in an order of the COM
mission, issued March % last, of violating
the interstate-commerce law by granting
rebates on traffic taken from points in the
United States to points in Canada. and by
charging less than their published rates on
such shipment. Mr.. Otto Kerchner ap-
peared as counsel for the Grand Trunk
company. The information upon which
the citation was issued was. at least in
part. furnished by the Michigan Central
Railroad Company, which was represented
by Mr.. Ashley Pond as counsel, and Mr..
Ledyard, its president.
In opening. the case: Mr.. Pond said that
he thought there could be no differences of
opinion or dispute as to the facts In the
case. He said that in the correspondence
which had passed between Mr.. Ledyard
and the officials of the Grand Trunk COM
it was freely admitted that that
company has charged to large
shippers of coal and coke from Buffalo and
Black Rock a rate considerably less than It's
DuDllSDtu Idlt, Nultu lie utlul W NC ~ Il
violation of the interstate-commerce law.
Mr.. Kerchner, on behalfo of his company,
denied that any rebates had been allowed
shippers on business originating in the
United States. Special rates had. however,
been made with receivers of coal in Canada,
which were in some cases less than the
regular tariff rates. These rates cover the
carriage of the coal to Canada, and also
cover the international bridge tolls; This
bridge, he admitted. was controlled and
practically owned by the Grand Trunk
company. He stated that these special
rates were open rates-that is, they were
plainly stated in the contracts made with
the shipper. He also said that the rate
charged was a gross rate from the point of
shipment to the point of destination, and
from this rate the railroad company pays
the bridge company its tolls.
Mr.. Pond read from the published tariffs
1888, in VIII ch the rate on coal
from Buffalo and Black Rock to Hamilton
and Dundas, in Canada, was given as 81:
This rate. he said, and it was not disputed
by Mr.. Kerchner, lac not been maintained.
On the contrary, concessions had been
made and were now being made to large
shippers.
Tacitly admitting these facts, Mr.. Kerch-
ner, in a brief argument, commended that
this traffic, from a point in the United
States to a point in Canada, did not come
within the control or jurisdiction of the
1nterstate-commerce Commission. He read
IudJ part VI IL hIoO CCtiO VI lilo
amended interstate commerce act, approved
March 2, 1850, which says that the provis-
ions of the act shall apply Ito any common
carrier engaged in the transportation of
passengers or property from any place in
the United States to an adjacent foreign
country" and commended hat a proper and
Just Interpretation of the meaning of the
words Ito an adjacent foreign country"
eign country" and not Into" that foreign
country. He expressed the belief that this
Interpretation was the one COngressintend-
ed should be placed upon it. What takes
place within a foreign country he held,
States or any one outside that foreign
country.
Mr.. Pond, in his answer, secuted the idea
that the word ITO" in this connection meant
Ito the border Of" and read from the same
section of the act. which says that this act
shall apply TO carriers engagedin the trans
portation of passengers or property from
one State or Territory of the United States,
or the District of Columbia, to any other
State.n etc. The word ''to' in the two con-
nections was used in precisely the same
sense, and he doubted if the counsel would
admit that it was his opinion that Congress
intended in this case TO regulate commerce
from one State simply to the border of an
other State.
Mr.. Kerchner insisted that it was not
within the jurisdiction of Congress to regu-
late commerce into another country, 1t
might very properly, he thought, regulate
traffic from a point In the United States
through a foreign country to another point
in the United States, OF from one State to
another, but not into a foreign country. He
said that the question involved was one of
the greatest Importance, and requested to
be allowed ten days within which to file a
printed brief in support of his position,
which was granted.
Atoning an Injustice.
ARKANSAS CITY. Kan, April 4.-Great in
justice has been done the travelling public,