The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-12-31
RA11RoAp AND sTEAMBoAr.
An Important Interstate Commerce
Case Decided.


An Important Interstate Commerce
Case Decided.
Mobile, Ala, Dec. 90.-Judge Toulmin
United States Judge, in the circuit court
to-day, rendered a decision in the case Of
the Bigbee and Warrior River Packet
Company VS.. the Mobile and Ohio Rail
road Company, involving an interpreta'
ton of the interstate commerce law.
The facts admitted in the pleadings are
that the packet company brought 400
bales of cotton from Demopolis to Mobile
on through bill TO New Orleans and of
fered the same to the Louisville and
Nashville, and then TO the Mobile and
Ohio to be transported at the
local rate of so cents. The
roads refused except at the rates
of 81 25, the respondents setting up
that there was a substantial disslmilarity
of circumstances and conditions from
those under which cotton is offered by
other shippers at Mobile and received by
respondent to be transported to New
Orleans.
CLAIM OF THE RAILROAD.
The substantial dissimilarity of circum-
stances and conditions as averred by the
respondent is the fact that the relator
was engaged in Transporting cotton and
other merchandise upon its vessels on the
Bigbee river and that this cotton was
received by the relator at DemopoEs,
Ala, and was transported upon its vessels
TO Mobile for the purpose of re-shipping
the same over the respondents line or
some other line of railroad to New
Orleans; and the respondent further
says in justification that it had
agreed with the Louisville and Nashville
railroad, and certain other railroad COM
panies within a specified or given terri
tory, for the purpose of maintaining a
uniform rate upon all shipments of cotton
from Demopolis and some other points in
Alabama in vessels plying the Alabama
rivers, and received at Mobile to be re-
shipped and transported to New Orleans,
that it would charge 81 26 per bale for
such transportation, and that the 400
bales in question were so received from
Demopolis.
THE DECISION AGAINST THE ROAD.
The court holds that the dissimilarity
of circumstances and conditions set by
the respondent in justification of its
claim is not the outcome of competition
by water routes or any other competitive
railroad line not subject to the interstate
commerce act. Therespondent's position
on this point cannot be main
tanned II am unable to see that the
came from Demopolis to Mobile to be re-
shipped thence to New Orleans, has any
direct bearing upon the traffic over the
respondents line to New Orleans. | am
unable to see how the fact or the circum-
stances that the cotton came from De
mopolis can in any way affect the
transportation or traffic over the respond
ent's line and connecting lines to New
Orleans. The respondent has no line to
OF oil nd
or Joint traffic arrangement with the re-
lator, the Bigbee and Warrior River
Packet Company, and hence there is no
question of proportion of the rates in
volved in the case.
DISSEMINATION PROHIBITED.
at is further contended by the re-
spondent that to grant to the relator the
right to ship its cotton from Mobile to
New Orleans at the same rate given to
other shippers of cotton from one point to
the other at what the counsel calls 1.-The
Mobile rate of so cents a bale" would
give to every town located on the Ala
bama rivers equal facilities and advanta-
ges with those of Mobile. That is true,
and that is what l understand the inter
state commerce act provides for and is
designed to protect, when il SAYS that
it shall be unlawful for any common
carrier subject to the provisions of the
act, to make or give any undue or unrea-
sonable preference or advantage to any
particular person or locality, or to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disad-
vantage in any respect whatsoever.
consider that any person who receives
cotton at Mobile from Demopois or any
particular point on the Alabama river
whether it comes by boat, by wagon, or
by any other way. and desires to ship it
from Mobile to New Orleans by the re-
spondent's railroad, is as much entitled
to have it shipped at the Mobile rate of
so cents bale, as any other person is
who receives his cotton from any other
point, or who may have bought it in Mo
bile. My conclusion is that no justifica-
ton has been shown by the respondent
for the discrimination complained of, and
that the REALTORS demurrer to the re-
spondent's answer should be sustained,
and it is so ordered"