The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-31
LAW FOR RAILROADS
Three Important Decisions by
the Supreme esart-
HILL CAN'T ABSORB THE N. p.
short Haul Freight Rate Cannot Be
More Than Long - Discrimination
in Favor of Imported Goods.

Washington City. March 3o-Justice
Brown delivered the opinion of the SUI
preme court today In the cases of Thomas
Pearsall vs.. the Great Northern Railway
Company, and of the Louisville * Nash
vile Railway Company VS.. the common
wealth of Kentucky. as to the right of
parallel and competing lines TO consolidate
holding In the case OF the Great Northern
that 1t could not. under its charter and In
opposition to the act of the Minnesota leg
isiature OF 1874. BIO consolidated with the
Northern Pacific. as was sought TO be ac-
Complished Justices Field and Brewer
dissented. In the Kentucky case a like
opinion was rendered as TO the attempt to
consolidate the Louisville & Nashville road
with the Chesapeake a. Ohio Southwest
ern. a parallel line.
PeRrsall. as a stockholder In the Great
Northern. filed bill in equity against the
company. under the laws OF the territory
and state OF Minnesota. 10 enjoin il from
entering Into an agreement with the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company. IN
der which the property and franchises of
the Northern Pacific Railroad Company
were To be purchased. 1t appears that
the Great Northern was originally
incorporated under the name of the
Minneapolis 4 ST. Cloud railway.
The original charter granted the com
pany the right to connect with any
railway running IN the same general direc-
ton and consolidate its stock or franchise
with thar of any other railway, and the
question presented TO the supreme court
was whether the company could be de-
prived Of this right by "a subsequent act of
the state Legislature lnhibitins the consol-
idation. lease or purchase ny any railway
Of the stock property or franchise OF any
faralleI or competing line. the legislature
having passed such law in 1874 The
court answered the question In the affirm
alive The court SAYS that II was compe-
tent for the legislature To limit the charter
and to declare that the power II had con-
ferred upon the Minneapolis & ST Cloud
company 20 consolidate its interests with
other similar corporations should not be
exercised so far as applicable 70 parallel
connecting lines inRsmuch as IL Is for the
interests OF the people that there shonld
BE- competition between parallel roads
The legislature" Il continues has the
right 70 assume. in this connection. that
neither road would reduce 10 tariff 70 a
destructive or improbable figure or TO a
peinf whore either road would become
valueiess 20 It's stockholders. aud the OBJ
is.s Of tn. act ~ question il IN prevent
such n combination between The two as
would constitute a monopoiy
Continuing tn court through Justice
Brown SAYS. Whether the consultation
in An ircreas- ~ rates. or whether s9Cn
consolidation has generalls resulted in 4
ti,trInent 10 the pablo, Is beside the ques-
fton Whether j. has that effect or no.,
il certainly pu;s tn the power 81 he con-
soiidate,s corporation to give it that effect
in short. pats The public Al the mercy
~ the corporation There IS and has been
in the past 80 years both in foreign coun-
tries ard this country a popular prej1-
,ii~,. against nonspolies IN general which
has found expression in 'nnurnerah}e acts
Of legislation. We cannot say that TuDh
prejudice j. well founded. Il is matter
on which the legislature IS ~ntitlesi H. pass
Judgment There are. moreover thought
90 be other dangers to the moral sense CT
the community incident 70 such great az
.rrautions 81 wealth. which. thoUgh iu.i-
rr~f. are evea NOR irsidicsss ~ their iniii-
ence. ans suoh ~ have awakened feelings
of hostility which have not failed 20 md
.Npve~sich IN Legislative Acts
The cousolids ton Of those tNo great
corporations would. said the court. asa
.cidahly r-Sait In giving ne Great Nor d.
ern monopoly % all tTafic in ne notth-
srn half of the state 81 Minnesots. a. &rli
AZ ait franscon tinenfRl trait1c NORTH Of thc
lfrle 81 th.. linton Pacific against which
p4hllc regulations voula BE- bot a feeble
protection. The act of tH- legislature q
3s-s p. concluded undoubtedly reflex "a
their best security = IN eomp,'1tion. The
sssS-tston % the circuit court ws~ therefore
reversed and the caSs reuaantled
An opinion was also gwen in tfe long
sna short haul case. fnsciVirE re Validity
q ths provision. o. ire Interstate com
rs~rle act prohibiting a higher charge for
= short than for a long hauL apg4safr -
FROM the decision q ghc circgi, court az
arpests <5r the Fi;ih circuit The aDr~Al
uruS taken ~ tee railroad. The fitie % TIRE
case vas Interstate Coumerce Conarnis-
ssaa ~ Cincinnati New Orleans & Texas
Paciac- Railway Company Tar decision
81 the coars below was affirmed IA th-
ssaalu. tae upiu'on hoid.r-s Fast IN cases 70
snspsr~n1s from o.. state - anStnev sn
through Balls 81 ia,stnx rAAissv companies
could M; exempt rartt~S ard give shen
sv,-eolsl rates Juslsc~ Shsras deliveries th-
asslr.ina ~ tre cau~t
l. as oa.E4oa IGali@e sa.T~s sla,~- LA.