Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-08-16
RAILWAY RATE CASE
ARGUMENT OPENED BEFORE
JUDGE siMONTON.
THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION.
For the Present the Proceedings
Are stripped OF Everything hut
This-ContcntioDs OF the Southern
and the Seaboard.

GREENVILLE, s. c.. August l5.-Therx
are, perhaps. more prominent and i'm
portant railroad representatives In
Greenville than have been con.
gregated in South Carolina in
many years Every prominent railroad
system in the Carolinas, Virginia, ands
Georgia is represented by its executive
ohicers or counsel, and. In some cases by
both. They have been brought here by tho
argument before United States Judge
Simonton. on the novel issue OF whether
Federal court has tho right to enjoIn
railroads from making considerable cuts
IN their freight and passenger rates.
There is now a restraining order in
force, prohibiting the Seaboard Airline
from carrying into force a cut OF S3l-3
per cent, as well as against all trans
portation lines belonging to the Southern
States Freight Association, prohibiting
them from carrying out an 50 per cent
reduction, with which IL was proposed to
crush out the Seaboard Airline cut The
action was brought by the Port Royal and
Augusta railroad, and all railroad in
terests, not excepting those outside OF this
territory, are materially interested.
The case began this morning at 1880,
and an adjournment was had at 3, after
the first argument.
Judge Simonton, early I'm the proceed
ings stripped them OF everything for tho
present except the matter OF Jurisdiction,
and the result OF the case VIII be de.
pendent on whether he claims or denies
jurisdiction I'm enjoining the parties to
the rate-cutting.
THE COMPLAINT.
The bill. which was presented by Mr..
| Smythe, recites the parties to the suit. and
! then goes into a history OF the placing OF
tho vessels OF the Baltimore, Chesapeake
! and Richmond Steamboat Company on
/ Chesapeake bay. and It Is to this conpe-
titon between the new line OF steamers
and the Bay Line that the original fight
IS due. The Seaboard Airline cut tho
ratio 90 l-3 per cent, because Of the fact
that It took the position tina, the South
ern wished TO force it's connecting line or
steamers out OF business on Chesapeake
pay and this was met by the cut Of 80
ner cent. through the Southern States
Freight Association, OF which the South
err railway IS a mebmer.
The bill alleges that il such rates were
permitted 70 SO into effect the result
would be a perfect decentralization OF all
rates, bringing disaster, not only upon all
. railroads operating I'm southern territory
but also to all the business interests OF
( the country; that the commercial pros-
perity Of the country depends, in a very
large degree upon the stability of rates
and upon their maintenance by the several
transportation companies; that this war
Of rates viii tend not only 70 demoralize
all railroad business, but will work ruin
70 those engaged In commerce, BY unset
ting values and putting at ru!nous dis
advantage all who had purchased and
shipped prior to such reduction, to those
purchasing thereafter
The bill recites many other grounds for
the interference OF the. court. Returns
were made by all OF the railroads cited.
the principal ones being those Of the
southern railway, Atlantic-Coast Line,
Seaboard Airline. and H. S. Haines,
| commissioner or the association.
POSITION OF THE SOUTHERN.
The Southern takes the position that the
~ per cent. cut would have restored rates
on the line; that II was heroic measure,
and that the % per cent. reduction made
by the Seaboard Airline was 10 ruin
the Southern railway and others; that the
said cut was conspiracy and combina-
ton on the part OF railroads operating
under the name OF the Seaboard Airline
and Baltimore Steam-Packet Company,
was Illegal, because OF the reason and
purpose Of the cut, and that the 50 per
cent. cut was defensive entirely
IL further charges that the Baltimore
steam-Packet Company and the Seaboard
Airline entered into a close and int-
mate connection. the object being to con-
solidate; that the Southern attempted in
every way TO avoid the necessity OF the
contest proposed by this company while
standing cut for its ally the Baltimore.
Chesapeake and Richmond Steamboat
Company. II is this new competition
alone that the seaboard is attempting 10
prohibit.
SEABOARD CONTENTION.
The Seaboard Airline, on the other
hand, contends. among other things. that
II does not control or direct the opera-
lions or the Baltimore Steam-Packet
company; that tnat company controls
Itself; that the Southern owns or controls
ali lines into Atlanta. excepting the Sea-
board Airline and the Western and At
lantic. The answer then goes on 70 show
that the Bay Line offered every induce
ment 10 keep the Southern from running
a line on Chesapeake bay, and charges
that the placing OF the line had as its
ultimate object by the Southern the break
ing down OF said line OF steamers, and OF
its sole competitor for eastern business
II takes the position that the Southern
is the controlling factor IN the Southern
States freight Ass0c.a ion, which Is 4
conspiracy and an Illegal combination, dis
eliminating against the Seaboard Air-
Lane 1t charges that the Port Royal ana
Augusta, being member OF this associa-
ton, should not complain OF its action,
as by It's vote the ~ per cent reduction
could have been prevented, and that, In
any event. that road Is not called upon
10 be the guardian OF the public, and that
Its proposed reduction OK - l-3 per cent.
was not ruinous
The Atlantic-Coast Line also made re-
ply.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
he only argument heard to-day was
the question Of Jurisdiction, 10 which
Judge Slmonton said he would cOlhne the
issue fer the present.
Mr.. Henry A. NJ. Smith, Of South Caro-
lima, who appeared for the SeabOard Air
Line, made the first argument. In BRIEF
he took the position that the Interstate
Commerce Commission was tho proper
tribunal for the hearing Of such cases.
and that 1t has statutory power for the
hearing OF such matters; that tho courts
had never been asked 10 interfere. except
on an unreasonable rate and that an un-
reasonable rate was never complained OF
on a reduced rate. and that the courts
had no right 10 interfere as It Was purely
a legislative function. The Court had no
right, he argued, 10 interfere with legiti-
mate competition; that the railroads in
terested were not Federal corporations,
and that the Court was without Jurisdic-
ton TO interfere In competition: and, fur
Their, that all the persons affected were not
within the jurisdiction OF Judge Simon
toms court, and that an order on his part
could not be made effective 70 prevent
and that II the Seaboard Air
line through competition. wrought in