The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1896-04-04
AGAINST JAMES J. HILL
SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE
GREAT NORTHERN CASE.
Higher Charge for a. short Than a
Long Haul Is Also Against
the Law.


Pearsall VS.. the Great Northern Rail
way Company and Louisville q Nash
vile Railway Company VS.. the common
wealth of Kentucky, as to rights of par
allel and competing railway lines to
consolidate, holding in 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 70 the supreme
court from the United States circuit
court for the district Of Minnesota. 1t
was bill in equity filed by Pearsall as
stakeholder 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 I'M
der which the property and franchises
of the Northern Pacific Railway Com
pany were to be purchased. 1t appears
that the Great Northern was originally
incorporated 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 it's stock or fran
chise with that of any other railway
ana the question presented to the su-
preme court was whether the company
could pe deprived of this right by a
subsequent act of the legislature inhib-
iting the consolidated lease or pur-
chase by any railway of the stock, prop
erty or franchise of any parallel or
competing line, the legislature having |
passed such a law I'm 1874. The court |
answered the question in the affirma- |
tive. The court says it was competent |
Tor the legislature to limit the charter |
and to declare that the power It had |
conferred upon the Minneapolis G. st. |
Cloud company to consolidate it's in |
terests 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"
1.-The legislature" il continues. has
the right to assume in this connection
that neither road would reduce its tariff
to destructive or improbable figure
or TO a point where either road would
become valuless to it's stockholders and
the act in question is to prevent such
combination between the two as
would constitute a monopoly"
Continuing, the court through Jus /
tice Brown, said whether the con-
solidation Of competing lines will neces-
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 t
certainly puts it in the power Of the
consolidated corporations 10 give it
that effect-in short, puts the public
at 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 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-
tions of wealth. which, though indirect,
are even more insiduous in their infiu-
ence and such as have awakened feel
ings of hostility which have not failed
10 find expression in legislative acts"
The consolidation of those two
great corporations would" said the
court. 'unavoidably result i'm giving the
Great Northern a monopoly of all traf-
fic in the northern half of the state OF
Minnesota. as well as all transconti-
mental traffic north of the line of the
Union Pacific. against which public
regulations would be but feeble pro-
lection"
The act of the Legislature 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
fore reversed and the case remanded.
Justice Shiras in the supreme court
today handed down a decision in the
long and short haul 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
to another on through bills of lading
the railways could not exempt parties
and give them special rates.
The case involved the construction Of
the fourth section of the Interstate com
merce act, known as the long and short
haul section. The dispute concerning
this matter is one that has been con-
arising in various parts Of the
and it has been of great public
Importance, as well TO the interests Of ,
as TO the railways I'm every
part of the country. that the question
be put to rest. There was also drawn {
In the question Of the mower Of the infar-