The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-31

the real question al issue was whether the
various railroad companies engaged in the
traffic from Cincinnati to Augusta and
Social Circle were so engaged under a
common control. management or arrange
ment for a continuous carrie ge or ship
NE mt. within the meaning of the inter
state commerce act. and the conclusion
of the court, he said. was that they were
50 engaged. The Georgia Railroad Com
pany one Of the parties involved, had set
UP the claim that as its road lay wholly
within the state OF Georgia, 1t did not fall
within the scope of the act. The court
refused to accept this view, and Justice
Shiras added that when this company en-
tered into the carriage Of foreign freight
by agreeing to receive the goods by virtue
of through bills of lading and to partici-
pate in through rates and charges it
thereby became part OF a continuous line,
and thus became afnenahle to the inter-
state commerce act. We do not per-
ceive." he continued, that the Georgia
Railroad Company escaped from the
pervision of the commission by requesting
the foreign companies not to fix any rates
for that part of the transportation which
took place in the state of Georgia, when
the goods were shipped 10 local points on
its road. 1t still left it's arrangement to
stand with respect 10 its terminals at Au-
ggsta and to other designated points.
Having elected to enter into the carriage
of interstate commerce and thereby sub
jected itself TO the control of the commits
sion. ii would not be competent for the
company To limit that control In respect
TO foreign traffic to certain points on its
read and to exclude other points.
We hold that when goods are shipped I'M
der a through bill of iadlng from point
in one state to another. AMI when such
goods are received in transit by a state
.sF,r ,-s.,iz i-f.k r-in
tioHal division of charges, such carriage
must be deemed to have subjected its road
10 an arrangement for continuous carriage
or shipment within the meaning of the
Interstate commerce act.''
1t follows. Judge Shiras says, that 1t is
within the jurisdiction Of the commission
to consider whether the Georgia company.
In charging a high rate for a shorter than
for longer distance over the same line
in the same direction. the shorter being
including within the longer distance. was
or was not transporting property in transit
between states under substantially similar
eirc Umstancts. He aids that there are no
provisions In the law empowering the
commission to fix rates
Justice Shiras also took occasion to rep
rlma nj the practice Of railroad companies
In Withholding the larger part af their cyl
deucs from the interstate commerce COM
mission in proceedings by that commission
and by first producing IT IN the courts
Justice Shiras also handed down an opin-
ion in the case OF the Texas Pacific Rail
way Company vs.. the Interstate commerce
commission. appealed from the circuit
court Of appeals for the Second circuit
known as the import rate ease. The opin-
ion Of the supreme court reverses the opin-
ion of the circuit court. which held Il was
Illegal 20 charge less on Imported goods
than on domestic articles. The effect Of
the opinion is 10 continue the alleged dis
elimination in the interest Of foreign ship
perS-