The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-31
Decision Handed Down 10 the In
port Rate Case.
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION LEGAL.
decisions Regarding Consolidation Of
Parallel Lines-Mexican National,
Annual Report-Earninss.

cunt and known as the Import rate case
Inc decision of the supreme court re-
Versed the opinion of the circuit court
which held that it was illegal TO charge
less on imported goods than on domestic
articles. The effect of the opinion is ia
continue the alleged discrimination In the
interest of foreign shippers.
ms case grew out of proceeding begun
IN 1871 before the interstate commerce com.
mission by the New York board of trade
ana transportation against u number o,
railroad companies. among which the
Texas and Pacific was not included. al.
though 1t was afterward included. 1t was
claimed that an unjust discrimination was
made by railway lines starting at the
eastern seaboand of the United States in
FAVOR OF goods coming from abroad under
JOINT ocean and railroad tariff and
against domestic tariff, originating at the
seaboard and going thence TO Western
terminals, and carried under substantially
similar conditions from such seaboard
westward; that the discriminating often
amounted to % per cent in the interest of
the foreigners. and that there were no cir
cumstances or conditions relating to i'm
ported traffic which could justify any DIFF
ference IN rates between imported traffic
transported TO any place in the United
States from port of entry and other traf-
iic from such port.
The Texas and Pacific company admitted
that il carried imported goods at lower
rates than those 1t had cont Independently
charged for like goods originating in the
United states and not imported from Flu
rope, and alleged that IL did so because
through shipments from foreign country
To the interior of the United States entail
ed different circumstances and conditions
from shipments originating at the Ameri-
can seaboard bound for the same Interior
points. Ii claimed that the controlling
forces 1 ~.
charge We're tho water lines from Europe
to the Atlantic coast
Justice Harlan dissented.
This case was an appeal by che Texas
and Pacific company from the decision of
the court Of appeals for the Second CIR
cult. The first point decided in II Is TO the
erect that the Interstate commerce COM
mission is a corporate body. with legal
capacity TO be a plaintiff or defendant in
the Federal courts Coming TO the main
point of controversy, Justice Shiras said
that, as the purpose of the Interstate COM
merce act was to regulate commerce. 1t
was reasonable TO suppose " was intended
10 cover the entire held of commerce and
mat the scheme of regulation would not
be restricted to a partial treatment of the
subject. 1t could not be readily supposed
mat congress intended, when regulating
such commerce, to interfere with and in
less destroy-sources OF
trade and commerce already existing, nor
to overlook the property rights Of those
who had invested money In the railroads
=
terests of consumers, 10 furnish whom
with merchandise Is one of the principal
objects of all systems of transportation.
1t was, he said plainly contemplated
that in constituting the interstate commerce
act there should be q tribunal capable 4
determining whether tho services rendered
by the railroads are alike and contempo-
raneous.
He said the commission had justified Its
action in denying the right OF railroad
to discriminate in favor Of for
AZ ion
of the act, ana had concluded that II was
constrained ny the law TO regard foreign
and domestic traffic as alike In kind un-
der substantially similar circumstances
and conditions. In this construction the
had erred. 1T was not iutend-
ed thar the commission should regard the
complaints OF only one class of the conf
muuity. ON the contrary. the commission
is to consider not only the wishes of the
shippers Of tho large cities but also the
desires and advantages OF the carriers in
securing special forms of traffic, and the
Interest of the public. He did not accept
the view that In tins legislation congress
had any purpose 70 reinforce the pro
visions of the tariff laws. These laws, lie
said, differ wholly in their objects from
the laws to regulate commerce. and added
The efforts OF The commission to deprive
inland consumers Of the advantage OF
through rates and thus to give an adj
TO the traders ana manufacturers
Of the large seahoard cities seems TO ere
ate the very mischief which it was one of
Summing up, the court concluded: THAT
the purpose of the interstate commerce
act is to promote commerce, that In pass |
ing upon questions under IL the commits |
sion and courts are empowered to consider |
all the circumstances and conditions that !
reasonably apply to the situation, and that |
In the exercise OF Its turisdiotion the tri- |
bunal may and should consider the legltl- |
mate interests of all concerned; that |
among these circumstances, in cases, |
whether of foreign or domestic traffic, |
connection is a very important one. The |
COMMISSIONS order under the law should |
have TIN, promotion of commerce In view |
of the position of enhancing the worth OF |
the organization.
was no intimation that the inland rates |
we're unreasonable, and consequently there |
could be no proper cognizance take of TINS |
point The mere fact that the disparity |
between through and local rates was con- |
d.d not of itself warrant the |
court In finding that such disparity con
stituted an undue Discrimination, much |
less did II Justify the court In flnding that |
HE entire difference between tho two |
rates was undue or unreasonable, espe- |
ciallv as there was no person. firm or cor |
poration complaining that he or they had |
been aggrleved by such DISPARITY.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan |
and Brown disSented from mo opinion OF
the court. and Justice Harlan delivered |
n vigorous dissenting opinion. lie said the |
inteTstate commerce act contains no pro- |
vision for schedules TO he printed ana |
kent omen to public inspection OF irelGnt |
shinned from a foreign country to be car |
ried ON a through bill Of lading TO some |
Mace in the United states, ana ne thouEht
he reason for the omission wac that
.nnqrsss did not intend the rates
no charged by our carriers N |
s s,ob cases 10 depend upon rates estab-
,,.hnd abroad from ocean transportation.
II was evident that the interstate com
morce commission had taken TINS Wow OF
The matter In issuing its order pefinl,,tln5
foreign goods the same footing III lahu
"a nsnortatio as domestic wares
Reyyiewing the case, he show1 una.
y,biie The Texas Pacific charge N'u' per
ic6 mounds on foreign freights from rev
orleans 10 San Francisco. u charSean
on domestic articles from 2S 70 ~,
denendine upon the character OF me
roods. which was IN all cases hoMever,
Inc same as those on which Only WV Was
charged for foreign goods Inc ques-
ion he said, was could the Texas "a
ci6c Consistently with the act of con-
lyress charge a higher rate Tor trans
norting goods starting from New ofleans
and destined TO San Francisco than toi
r al ,snorting between the same places ior
Goods Of the same kind. bulk, weight
-,ai,,a ami EXPENSE OF carrige. brought 10
New orleans from Liverpool on q through
hin of lading and TO be carried TO "a"
Francscor ,. o.,,o, ho m
swered in the affirmative; II all me
abroad companies whose lines exteno
di.s ti.u,f. aboard across the