Red Lodge picket. [volume] (Red Lodge, Mont.) 1889-1907, 1896-04-04
AGAINST JAMES J. HILL
SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE
GREAT NORTHERN CASE.
HIGHER Charge for u Short Than ii
Long Haul Is Also Against
the Law.

preme court today III the case OF mos
Pearsall VS.. the Great Northern Rail
way Company and Louisville & Nash
Vile Railway Company Us. the common
wealth Of Kentucky, as to rights or par
allel and competing railway lines 70
consolidate, holding i'll the case OF the
Great Northern that it could not under
its charter, and in opposition to the act
OF the Minnesota legislature Of 1874 be
consolidated with the Northern Pacific,
as was sought 10 be accomplished.
The case of Pearsall VS.. the Great
Northern company came TO the supreme
court from the United States circuit
court for the district Of Minnesota. 1t
was bill in equity filed by Pearsall as
stockholder in the Great Northern
against the laws of the territory and
state Of Minnesota, TO enjoin it from
entering into an agreement with the
Northern Pacific Railway Company un-
der which the property and franchises
Of the Northern Pacific Railway Com
pany We're TO be purchased. 1t appears
that the Great Northern was originally
incOrpOra ted under the name Of the
Minneapolis & st. Cloud railway. The
original charter granted the company
the right to connect with any railway
running in the same general direction
and to consolidate its stock or fran
chise with that Of any other railway
and the question presented to the su-
preme court was whether the company
could De deprived Of this right by a
subsequent act of the Legislature nhib
iting the consolidated lease Or pur-
chase by any railway Of the stock. prop
erty or franchise Of any parallel or
competing line, the legisla ture having
passed such law in 1874. The court
answered the question in the atflrma-
tive. The court says it was competent
for the legisla ture 10 limit the charter
and to declare that the power it had
conferred upon the Minneapolis & st.
cloud company TO consolidate its in
teresrs with other similar corpora
tions should not be exercised SO far as
applicable to parallel competing lines,
inasmuch as it is for the interest Of the
people that there should be competition
between parallel roads,
The legislature,' it continues, has
the right to assume in this connection
that neither road would reduce it's tariff
to destructive or Improbable figure
or to a point where either road would
the act in question is to prevent such
a combination between the two as
would constitute monopoly"
Continuing the court, through JUS
tice Brown, said: whether the con-
solidation Of competing lines will neees- !
sarily result in an increase of rates
or whether such consolidation has gen
orally resulted in a detriment TO the |
public is beside the question.
Whether it has that effect or not It |
certainly puts it in the power Of the
consolidated corporations 10 give il
that effect-in short, puts the public |
al the mercy of the corporations.
There is and has been for the past |
300 years, both in foreign countries and |
this country, a popular prejudice |
against monopOlies in general. which |
has found expression in innumerable |
acts Of legislation. We can not say |
that such prejudice is not we'll found |
ed. 1t is a matter Of which the legisla |
ture is entitled to pass judgment. There |
are, moreover, thought to be other |
dangers to the moral sense Of the COM |
munity incident to such great aggrega- |
rfons Of wealth, which, though Indirect. |
are even more insiduous in their inf1u- |
ence and such as have awakened feel |
ings Of hostility which have not failed |
to find expression in legislative acts
THE consolidation Of those two
great corporations would" said the |
court. "unavOidably result in giving the
Great Northern a monopoly of all traf-
fc in the northern half Of the state Of |
Minnesota, as we'll as all transconti- |
mental traffic north Of the line Of the |
Union Pacific, against which public |
regulations would be but feeble pro-
tectior7."
THE act of the legisla ture Of 1874"
he concluded undoubtedly reflected the |
general sentiment Of the public that
their best security Is In competition" "
The decision of the court was there 1
fore reversed and the case remande1.
Justice Shiras in the supreme court
today handed down a decision in the
long and short Ialn case appealed from
the decision Of the circuit court of ap-
peals Of the Fifth circuit. The appeal
was taken by the railroads. The title
Of the case was the Interstate commerce
commission VS.. the Cincinnati, New Or
leans < Pacific Railway Company. The
decision Of the court below was In the
main confirmed, the opinion holding
that in case Of shipment from one state
10 another on through bills Of lading
the railways could not exempt parties
and give them special rates.
The case involved th" construction Of
the fourth section Of the interstate COM
7nerce act, known as the long and short
haul section The dispute concerning
this matter is one that has been con-
tinuougly arising in various parts Of the
country and 1t has been Of great public
importance, IS well to the interests Of
commerce as 10 the railways in every
uart Of the country, that the question
he put TO rest There was also drawn
in the question Of the power Of the Inter
state commerce commission to fix max
inum rates in case properly brought
before it as distinguished from mere
decision that particular rate IS exces-
sive
The three railroad companies are the
connecting roads running from Cincin-
natl, Ohio, to Augusta, GA. This ftiga-
don began through the complaint Of
seller Of bugSies at Cincinnati to the
interstate commerce commission that
the rates to Augusta, at the END or the
Georgia railway, and to Social Circle,
which was point on the Georgia rail-
way so miles below Atlanta, are such
as TO unlalfly discriminate against 'oo-
cial Circle. The Texas Pacific and the
Atlantic & Western roads claimed in
their answer that the rate to Social Cir
Gle could only be made by the consent
Of the Georgia road on which it Is 10
Gated. The Georgia company admitted
that the rates to Social Circle We're the
rates to Atlanta, plus the rate from
Atlanta to Social Circle, and contendec
that they were not unreasonable, tht
rate to Atlanta being less than 1t should
be because Of competition with lines
from that city to Baltimore.
In his opinion Justice Shiras stated
that the real question at issue was
whether the various railroad companies
engaged in the traffic from Cincinnati
to Augusta and Social Circle were so
engaged under q common control man.