Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-06

ity, or any particular description Of traf.
/ nc, 20 any undue or unreasonable PIE.
/ JUDGE or disadvantage Ia any respect
/ whatsoever"
Tho common carriers subject 20 the
| provision Of the act are defined Dy TIE
statute 90 be "auy common carrier or
carriers engaged Ia the transportation
II passengers o.. property wholly ~ r1 a.
road, or Iarily by railroad or partly ey
water, when both are used under a COM
mon control. Infringement ~ arfnhse
meut for n continuous shipment from
one state or teriitOTS Of the United
States or District Of Columbia, 20 auy
other state Or territory Of the United
States
The subject matter Of this litigation
is. therefore. the construction and en-
forcement of any act ~ congress, aud the
court acquires jurisdiction because Of the
federal question involved That such
question Is involved. ! think too plain for
serious controversy. IL is sufficient to
constitute case for cOgnizance by q
federal court II IL involves but n single
ingredient or question dependent on the
constitution. or q law or treaty Of the
United States, although it may at the
same time involve any other questions
that depend on the general principles OF
law. Chief Justice Marshall. iu Osborn
vs.. United States bank. . Wheaton. 13S.
considered this point and came TO the
following conclusion: We think, then,
that when a question 20 which the Judi
cial power OF the Union ~ extended by
the constitution forms an ingredient OF
the original case. it Is Ia the power Of
congress TO give circuit courts jurisdc-
ton of that case. although other questions
Of fact or law may be Involved ia it,
Remedies OF similar nature might w.
d0ubiely be invoked under statutes md
the common law. but the act iu que/iou
affords the broadcast aud most e1/ctive
relief, and the jurisdiction Is, th/efOre.
grounded upon that law.
Upon the filing Of this bin og/the 18th
day Of March and upon application 20
up, IN chambers. at Cleveiau/ a mauda-
tory injunction WIS all0we/ directed 90
the defendants their ugliiits. officers
servants aud employees, aI/ it was there
iu ordered that the /id defendants.
Albert g.. Blair, Jaco/ - Morris the
Pennsylvania company the Wheeling
aud Lake Erie Ru/yay compaIE, the
Lake rhore aud Ali/iigan southern Rail
way company. ~ Michigan Central
natl, Hamilton aud Dayton RAILROAD com
pany, the Columbus, H0cking Valley and
Toledo Railway company, the Toledo aud
Ohio Central Hallway company. the Gin.
ciuuati. Jackson and MacAinaw Railway
company and each o! them and their
othCerZ agents, servants and employees
he aI they are hereby enj0iubd and re-.
strafed from refusing b. offer and ex-
teZ 20 said Toledo. Ann ArbUr and
Vrth Michigan Railway company the
/iuc equal facilities for Interchange OF
traffic on Interstate business between
railroad companies, as are eujoiued by
other railroads, aud from refusing 10 re
ceiye from said Toledo. Ann Arbor and
North Michigan Railway company. cars
billed from points il one state to points
in another state. which may be offered
20 said defendant companies by the com
plainaut and from refusing 10 deliver in
like manner 10 said complainant cars
which may be billed over said complain.
ants line from points 10 one state 10
points in other states. which may be Of.
fered % said defendant companies by
the complainant. aud from refusing 10
deliver iu Ike manner 70 said complain
ant cars which may be billed over COM
piuinauts line from points Ia one state
10 paints In other states. Ordered that
writ ~ iniui ctinn De- issued out Of and
under the seal Of this court as proved
for in the hii Of complaint, 10 remain
IN force until the further order OF
court herein
The application for this order was
made 10 me Ia chambers az Cleveland
late ON Saturday night, March H. The
situation set out in the bin disclosed
an emergency IN which prompt action was
necessary | had granted q similar man
datory order in 1891, on bill for an