The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-10-22
AN IMPORTANT RULING,
The Supreme Court Passes on 4
Question Under the Interstate
Commerce Law.
A Contract for Special Rates In
validated by the Act or
Congress-
William H. Bullard. Of Miles City. Loses
Nearly Six Hundred Dollars
Claimed rs Rebate.

| The supreme court Of Montana yesterda,
rendered decision which settles, 10 far a,
| this state is concerned, the question an e
whether special railroad rates made before
the passage of the interstate commences Law
can be held good after that act went into
effect. The case was that between William
II. Billiard and the Northern Pacific rail-
road company. The opinion was prepared
by Justice Blake, the other judges concur
ring, and is in effect that an arrangement
made between common carrier and a ems.
toner, by which lower rates were given
than the general public enjoy, was repealed
by the act regulating commerce between
the states.
On November 10, 1885, William H, Bull
lard and his then partner, Thomas II.
Irvine, who were in business ut Miles Citv.
Mont. made an agreement with the North.
ern Pacific to bring them beer in carload
lots from st. Paul at the rate of SEVENTY
i've cents per 100 pounds, and to carry back
the empty casks at the rate Of fifty cents
per 100 pounds. The arrangement wss To
last until November l, 1887, and by its terms
bullard and his partner were to paw the
regular rate of freight and receive rebate
lor the excess over the prices named. Be-
tween January and November, 1887, the
Northern Pacific carried eleven carloads of
beer for Billiard. Its weight was 235. 10
pounds. The freight paid was s., 1857 of
which Bullard claimed $59O.95 rebate. The
railroad company refused to pay it. They
CANNED that the interstate commerce act,
which was approved on February 4, 1877, and
went into effect sixty days later, cancelled
the special rate made to Billiard; and that
up to April the rebate had been allowed.
The district court Of Custer county decid-
ed in favor of Billiard and the railroad
company appealed.
down yesterday, holds that contracts like
the one referred to became invalid under
the second section Of the act, which pro-
Woes that IT any common carrier, direct
~ or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate.
drawback, or other device, receive OF
charge greater compensation for service
rendered in transportation Of passengers or
property than it charges others for like SER
wee, such common carrier shall be deemed
guilty of unjust discrimination, which ia
hereby prohibited and declared illegal"
r.. we have been unable" says the court.
to ind any case in which a contract like
that in the complaint has been protected
from the operation of a statute which fixed
penalties for an unfair Discrimination by
railroad companies in their tariffs for carry.
ing frelghts. The act of congress derives
Its force from the grant of power by the
constitution to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several
states No court has attempted to define
this power with precision, although the
general principles applicable thereto have
been established firmly in Jurisprudence. |
u the contract mentioned had been full |
hlied. 1t is plain that after the act of CON
Rress became effective, and during the |
period specified, there would have been
in favor of Bullard bv the |
railroad company in the sum of $59O.95 on
account of the transportation of his |
zoods In other words. the patrons OF the |
Northern Pacific railroad company who had |
40 special agreement would pay this |
amount for the same service in excess of |
What would be demanded Of Bullard. Il
1as been adjudged in many cases that when |
;hese circumstances arise, the contract. I
vhich was entered into by the parties in |
ms action, is contrary to public policy and
'annot be enforced
A rule Of law ia quoted to the effect that
no contract can properly be carried into
meet which was originally made contrary
o the provisions of law; or which, being
made consistently with the rules of law at
he time. has become illegal in virtue Of |
ONE subsequent law In conclusion the |
curt says: "The principles which have
'een stated are applicable to the act of
onRress to regulate commerce. The re-
pondent is not entitled to recover iudp-
aent for any amount. The contract cam
ot serve as the foundation of any action
y the parties thereto.'' The Judgment of
ne lower court is therefore reversed with
osts, and the case remanded with direc-
ions to dismiss the action.