The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-09-15

rier owning the lines OF railway and en-
gagged IN interstate commerce, between the
cities CT st. Louis, Mo-, Wichita, Kan.
and Omaha, Neb. The distance from St
Louis to Wichita is ASS miles; to Omaha,
Dol miles That all freight on defendant:
lines to the two cities going TO aud from
st. Louis passes over 232 miles OF the same
track, to Holden, Mo. ;.thence on separate
lines to Wichita, 226 miles; TO Omaha, 26s
miles; being haul of torty-three miles les:
TO Wichita than to Omaha
The bill further sets out in detail the
schedule rates of freight TO the two
cities, showing that about 100 per cent
greater rates are charged to Wichita than
TO Omaha, on the same kind and
| classification of freights, and this while
the shipments are made as alleged con-
temporaneously and under similar Cir
cumStances and conditions. 1t IS further
alleged that such rates are unreasonable,
excessive and exhorbiJant," and are unjust
discrimination against the city of Wichita.
That the city of Wichita Is a general dis
trlbuting point for large scope OF country,
EN- bracing central and southern Kansas
and Indian Territory and Oklahoma, and
that theses eXhorbitant and UNJUST rates
and this unlawful discrimination against
the city of Wichita and its distributing
territory, causes great and lrreparable
prejudice and injury to the citizens of the
United States aud the public generally
engaged in and affected by this interstate
commerce between st. Louis and Wichita.
The provisions Of the interstate com
merce act upon which the charges are
based are as follows:
Section one of IAN act to regulate COM
merce" provides:
THAT ali charges made for any services
rendered, or to be rendered, in the trans
portatlon of passengers or property afore-
said. or in any connection Herewith or for
receiving, delivering, storage or handling
such property shall be reasonable and just;
and every unjust and unreasonable charge
for such service is prohibited and declared
to be unlawful"
Section two provides:
THAT If any common carrier subject to
the provisions of this act shall directly or
indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, draw
back or other device, charge, demand, col
lect or receive from any person or persons a
greater or less compensation for any seq
vices rendered, or TO be rendered,
or property subject TO the provis-
ions of this act, than il charges
demands, collects or receives from any
other person or persons for doing for MIN
or them alike aud contemporaneous ser
vice ID the transportation OF like kind Of
traffic, under substantially similar coudi-
lions, such common carrier shall be
which Is hereby prohibited and declared to
be unlawful"
Section three provides:
THAT il shall be unlawful for any COM
mon carrier subject 20 the provisions of
this ACT to make or give any undne or I'M
reasonable preference or advantage to any
particular person, company, firm. corpor-
alton, or locality, or any particular des-
criptIon of traffic, in any respect whatso-
ever or subject 10 any particular person,
company, firm or corporation or locality,
OR any particular description OF traffic, TO
any undue or unreasonable prejudice or
disadvantage III any respect whatsoever"
If the allegations of the bill are true. and
they are SO taken on demurrer, there seems
to be no room for doubt as to the violation
of the law by the defendant company.
In the able briefs presented by counsel
for the respective parties the main point
of controversy is, first, as to the right of
the United States to maintain such a COM
plant against defendant in any form and,
second, TO the form in which that
remedy is to be sought.
Counsel for defendants very tersely state
their case as follows:
ut is the theory of the defendant that
the complainant has stated IN Its bill no
Just or sufficient facts to constitute cause
of action in its behalf against this defend
ant; that as matter of law, the United
States of America has not, pursuant TO AN
act to regulate commerce. upon which this
bill is founded, a cause of action against
this defendant, and that this court has no
jurisdiction, and cannot. by virtue of said
act, or other power Or right, draw unto it
self original and independent jurisdiction
to try said cause"
Ia view of what, upon the face OF the
BILL would seem TO be a very gross viola
ton of the express prohibitions of the Sin
a IN fhnra
ought to be a remedy somehow and some
where. and there ought to be means of
defendant company to obedi-
ance TO this law. The whole object, iutent
and design of the interstate commerce
act, with Its sweeping clauses, and far
and all providing prohibitions,
was to provide safe, easy ana expeditions
node of reaching and preventing just such
abuses are charged in this bill.
That relief may be had through a court OF |
equity by Injunction ia such cases where !
he proper parties are before the court, is |
ibundautly supported by the authorities !
md as general proposition will hardly |
De questioned. But say the counsel for the |
defendant we have here neither the proper |
PARTIES nor the proper forum.
By act of congress. February 10, 1891, the |
9th section OF the original act was /
amended by inserting after the first clause !
provision which seems TO have a special |
bearing on this question.
The amendment is shown in italics as
ollows: And the commission is hereby |
authorized and required 10 execute and /
nforce the provisions of this act; and upon
he request of the commission it shall be |
he duly of any district attorney of the 1
United States TO whom the commission |
nay apply, to institute in the proper court, |,
nd 10 prosecute under the direction of the
general of the United States, all |
a.,
Il the provisions of this act. and for the
of all violations thereof; and |
he costs and expenses of such prosecutions
hall be paid out of the appropriation for
ne expenses of the courts of the United
states" etc.
Now this amendment means some
hing. Ii IS couched in the language of
rant or new authority, aud imposes addi-
lonal requirements as to the rights and
uty of the commission to see TO il that |
he law is enforced. And a significant
act in this connection Is that this enact
nent follows aud might appear to be the
Ogical result of the report Of the commits /
ion made in 1889 and the rulings OF the
ourts in reference to the powers of the
commission made prior 10 its passage.
In the Fifth Annual Report, 1889 10. |
419) the commission say: Though re-
uired TO execute and enforce the prOvis-
ons of the act, the commission hot being
invested with power TO enforce its own
riders. is dependent for the efiicienc OF
uch execution and enforcement upon the
ourts.
Within the year, and in compliance
With the provisions of Section is, OF this
CT, applications have been made by petit
lou 10 the United States circuit court.
nd suits are now pending for the enforce
nent of the orders, which. with a single
RECEPTION, We're made In previous years.
Attention is called TO the fact that the
riders of the commission made in pre-
ious years were then going through the
low process OF enforcement by the courts.