St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-09-25
In the Chain That Holds the
Interstate Commerce Law
Together.
MAY DEMAND PREPAYMENT.
Railroad May Trust One Road
and Refuse Credit to
Another.
W RATE ON LONG HAUL
fhau on aShort Haul, Though
a Violation, Held
Valid.

The United States circuit court OF
appeals resumed its Sittings yesterday
morning, with Judges Caldwell, San
born and Thayer o. the bench. There
were opinions handed down in fourteen
causes, and orders made in nine others.
Among the decisions are opinions on
the construction of the interstate COM
MERGE law that are OF unusual impor'
lance, they breaking another link in
the chain that holds the law that was
designed to protect the people from the
abuses of the corporations, but which
WAS evidently passed by congress in the
interest of the railroads.
Discrimination Charged.
The Little Rock 4 Memphis Railroad
Company. appellant. vs.. The ST. Louis
Southwestern Railway Company; The
Little Rock 4 Memphis Railroad Com
pany. plaintiff in error, VS.. The 81.
Louis Southwestern Railway Company
The Little Rock II Memphis Railroad
Company, appellant, vs.. The st. Louis,
Iron Mountain x Southern Hallway
company: The Little Rock Il Memphis
RaiIroad Company. plaintiff III error, VS..
The ST. Louis, Iron Mountain q South
ern Railway Company; The Little Rock
Il Memphis Railroad Company, appel.
liant, VS.. The Little Rock II Fort Smith
Railroad Company; The Little Rock u
Memphis Railroad Company, plaintiff
in error. VS.. The Little Rock u Fort
Smith Railway Company; on appeals
from writs of error to the circuit court
of the United States for the Eastern
district of Arkansas. Affirmed. Opiu.
ion by Thayer. circuit Judge.
These were six suits brought by the
7 ;+.I, Dali g yJ,n,hi, p,,lroad onm.
pany against several roads for alleged
violation of the third section of the in
t~erstate commerce law. or the pro vision
relating to the long and the short haul.
I%niunclious were asked for n damages
demanded i'll separate actions az ainst
each of the st. Louis Southwestern
Railway company; the st. Louis, Iron
Mountain IL Southern Railway COM
pany, and the Little Rock IL Fort Smith
Railway company. The SIX suits against
the three roads involved the same ques-
tiops. The Little Rock & Memphis road
rum east aud west from Little Rock to
Memphis, and is 1855 miles long. and in
ter5ects the defendant roads,
1t is alleged that the st. Louis South
western company refused to receive
freight or passengers from he Little
Rock & Memphis road. except at loo al
rates, refused to honor passenger tickets
. and required freight to be rebilled and
passengers to buy new tickets, which
was different from the course pursue d
relative to the ST. Louis, Iron Mo untain
d Southern road. .
Against tine Little Rock 81 Fort Smith
rnaH aud tha ~ Innio fran Mountain
& Southern road the same charge was
made. with the limitation. however,
that freight must be paid at local rates
and prepaid.
In the lower court the demurrers to
the bills in equity and the complaints at
law were sustained aud the causes dis
missed. This court sustains the action
OF the lower court.
1t is held by this court that the inter-
state law did not take away
the right to require charges to be pre-.
paid, as the roads had the right to de-
mand at common law. The defendants
have the right to refuse credit. They
can require prepayment by some roads
and extend credit to other roads at will.
Such course would not violate the pro-
vision of the interstate commerce law
which prohibits the taking of "undue
or unreasonable advantage. The law
does not require a road to enter into an
agreement with all other roads relative
to accepting freight and passengers
similar to that entered into with one or
more of the several connecting lines.
AS the law stands, the court is unwilling
to compel the defendants to afford the
facilities asked for by the Little Rock &
Memphis road. If the public interest
requires that interstate carriers shall be
compelled to put in force arrangements
for the through billing and rating and
for the establishment of joint through
lines, the court believes the law should
be made more explicit, and the commits
sion should be empowered to prescribe