The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-10-19
AGAINST The NY. IN. E.
important Decision BY U. S. Circuit
Judge Lacombe.
FAVORABLE TO HOUSATONIc.
A Railroad Cannot Avoid an Order Of the
Interstate Commerce Commission by
Technical Compiiance While Continu-

New YORK, Oct. I9.-One OF the most
important of railroad decisions relating
to discrimination between connecting
decision of the United States Circuit
Court. Southern District OF New York
in the case Of the New York and Northern
Railway Company VS.. the New York and
New England Railroad Company.
The case was originally brought before
the interstate commerce commission, and
the principles laid down in the opinion
of the commission are fully sustained by
the court, and the motion TO dismiss the
petition denied.
The petitioning roads case Is set forth
as follows:
Upon the petition of the New York
and Northern Railway Company, fled in
this court under the 10th section Of the
act to regulate commerce. for the enforce
ment oe an order OF the Interstate Com
merce Commission requiring the defend
ant, under the third section of said act,
to cease and desist from discrimination
in facilities aud rates between petitioner
and another connecting line"
Since the service of the commissions
order to desist from discriminating, ETC.
against the petitioner, the. respondent
has restored the joint through tariff. IL
has also desisted from refusing TO accept
freight on through bills, but has SO ar
ranged the running of its trains that the
facilities for interchange, forwarding and
delivering are las Is alleged) substantially
no better than before, and not equal to
those afforded to the competing line.
The respondent contends, however that
such acts may not be shown before this
court, acting summarily under sec. 10 in
review and enforcement OF the order of
the commission, because no question OF the
hours of running trains was presented to
the commission.
1t is manifest, says Judge Lacombe In
his decision, that equal facilities NAV be
refused quite rs much In one way as in
the other, and both grounds Of complaint
relate to the subject matter of physical
Interchange and prosecution OF traffic, in
stead of to a discrimination In rates. To
refuse altogether to receive traffic from
one connecting line; to receive IL only
under arrangements which impose such
obligations upon the shippers, as TO trans
fer and rebilling as would make the
transaction Of the business impracticable
In competition with a more favored line;
to receive IL without reshipment and
transfer, indeed, but to Systematically
neglect to forward it; TO receive aud for
ward 1t, but to SO arrange the hours or
manner Of its delivery as to deprive IL of
facilities equal to those afforded to traffic
coming from the competitor-these and
a great variety of other devices which
might be suggested, while differing some
what i'm detail, are in substance practi-
cally the same.
The Judge carefully analyzes the rea-
sons which the ". Y. q N. v. Railroad ad-
vance in favor of dismissing the petition
OF the Housatonic road, and decides that
the motion to dismiss the petition must
be denied The effect OF this decision is
TO make the decision of the Interstate
Commerce Commission operative aud
prevent the avoidance of the order by the
New England In the manner specified.