The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-08-16
CAN THEY COME IN COURT?
JUDGE sIMONTON TAKES Up TIRE
INJUNCTION CASE.


REGULATIONS of the Biu-PIots and
COnspirHcies Charged by Both
Against the Other - GreenVlIIe
FILLED With Railroad MaEnates.
Greenville. S. c.. Aug. 15.-There are
| perhaps more prominent and important
/ railroad representatives in GreenVille to-
| day than have been congregated in South
| Carolina in many years. Every prominent
| railroad system in the Carollnas, Virginia
and Georgia are represented by their ex-
ecuuve officer or counsel. and IN some
cases by both.
They have been brought here by the
argument before United States Judge
| simonton on the novel suit OF whether a
I federal court has the right to enjoin rail-
roads from making considerable cuts in
their freight and passenger rates.
There is now a restraining order in force
| prohibiting the Seaboard Air Line from
carrying into force a cut Of S3l5 per cent,
as wen as against all railroad belonging to
! the Southern States Freight Association
prohibiting them from carrying out an 50
| per cent. reduction. with which 1t was
| proposed to crush out the Seaboard Air
Line cut.
The action was brought by the Port
Royal and Auguta railroad, and railroad
/ interests, even not excepting those out of
| this territory, are materially interested
| The case began this morning at 1880
| O'Clock, and an adjournment was had at
/ $3.50 clock, after the urst argument. Judge
/ Simonton, early in the proceedings,
| stripped them Of everything for the pres
! sent except the matter Of jurisdiction, and
| the result of the case Will be dependent
| on whether he claims or denies jurisdiction
/ in enjoining the parties to the rate cut
| ting.
The bill. which was presented by Mr.,
| Smythe, recites the parties to the suit,
| and then enters into history Of the plac-
| ing Of vessels Of the Baltimore, Chesapeake
and Richmond Steamboat Company on
/ Chesapeake bay, and 1t is to this commit
| tee between the new line Of steamers and
| the Bay line that the original fight is due.
| The Seaboard Air Line cut the rate
| 33b per cent, because OF the fact that 1t
| took the position that the Southern wish
| ed to force dts connecting line Of steam
ers out of business on Chesapeake Bay,
and this was met by a cut per cent
/ through the Southern States Freight AS
sociation of the southwest. The Southern
| railway, a member OF the association
| named in the bill, alleges that IL such
| rates were permitted to go into effect that
| the result would be perfect demoralza-
| tion Of all rates bringing disaster not only
| upon all railroads operating IN the said
| territory, but also 10 aah business inter-
ests Of the country; that the commercial
/ prosperity OF the country uepFu0S IN
| very large degree upon the stability Of
| rates, and upon their maintenance by the
| several transportation companies that
this war of rates will tend not only to de-
| mOraliZe all railroad business, but Will
work ruin to these engaged in commerce
| by unsettling values and putting at
| ruinous disadvantage all who had pur-
chased and shipped prior to such reduc-
| tiOn to those purchasing after.
The bill recites many other grounds
! for the interference of the court. Re-
| turns were made by all of the railroads
cited, the principal ones being these of
the Southern railway Atlantic Coast Line.
! Seaboard Air Line and II. G. Haines,
| commissioner Of the association. The as
| sociauon takes the position that the 80
| per cent cut would have restored rates
| on the line, 1t being a heroic measure,
| and that the S5 per cent. reduction made
| by the Seaboard Air Line was to ruin the
| Southern railway and others; that the
| said cut was a conspiracy and combina-
| ton on the part of the railroads operat-
| ing under the name of the Seaboard Air
| and Baltimore Steamship Packing Com
| pany, and was illegal because of the
| reason and purpose Of the cut, and thar
| the 50 per cent. cut was defensive en-
| tirely.
II further charged that the Baltimore
| Steam Packet Company and the Seaboard
/ Air Line entered into close and inti-
! mate connection, the object being to
! consolidate; that the Southern attempted
in every way to avoid the necessity of
!
while standing out for it's ally, the Bal
timore Chesapeake and Richmond Steam
! boat Company. 1t is this new competi-
ton alone that the seaboard is attempt
| ing to prohibit.
The Seaboard Air Line, on the other
| hand, contends, among other things, that
! it does not control or direct the opera
| tions of the Baltimore Steam Packet
| Company; that company controls itself;
| that the Southern owns or controls all
! lines into Atlanta, excepting the Seaboard
! Air Line and the Western and Atlantic. II
| then goes on to show that the Bay line
! offered every inducement to keep tho
! Southern from running a line on Chesa-
! peake bay and charged that the placing
of the line had as it ultimate object by
! the Southern In obtaining said line of
! steamers to break down its sole competi-
/ tor for eastern business.
! II takes the position that the Southern
is the controlling factor in the Southern
/ States Freight Association, which is a
| conspiracy and Illegal combination dis
! eliminating against the Seaboard Air
/ Line. 1t charges that the Port Royal
/ and Augusta, being a member of this as
/ sociation. should not complain of its ac-
! ton, as by its vote the 50 per cent. re-
/ duction could have been prevented, and
/ that in any event that road is nor called
upon to be the guardian Of the public,
| and that It's proposed reduction Of 33B per
/ cent was not runous.
| The Atlantic Coast Line also made re-
| ply.
| the question Of jurisdiction, to which
| Judge Simonton said he win confine the
/ issue for the present. NJ. Henry A. NJ
/ Smith of South Carolina, who appeared
| for the Seaboard Air line, made the first
/ argument In brief he took the position
that the interstate commerce commission
/ was the proper tribunal for the hearing
of such cases, and that it has statutory
! power for the hearing of such matters:
| that the court had never been asked to
| interfere except on an unreasonable rate,
| and that an unreasonable rate was never
| complained of on a reduced rate, and that
| the court had no right to interfere, as
/ 1t was purely a legislative function.
The court had no right, he argued to
| interfere with legitimate competition
| there was no federal question involved
| and the railroads interested were not
| federal corporations and that court was
| without jurisdiction to interfere in COM
| petition, and. further, that all the persons
| affected were not within the jurisdiction
of his court, and that an order on his
| part could not be made effective to pre-
vent competition. and that II the Seaboard
| Air Line, through competition, wrought
an injury to the Port Royal road. It had
! its redress, as the Seaboard was solvent
| porpor9