The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-31
INTERSTATE COMMERCE Law
Two Important Cases Decided In The
United States Surrme Court,
ONE WAS A LONG and SHORT HAUL CASE
The Other Known as the Import Rate Case
The Commission Has No Power to Fix
Rates.-Inland Tariff Rates May
Differ From Import Rates. .a

WASHINGTON. March 3O.-The Inter-
state commerce law was the eubJect oil
construction by the Supreme Court OF the
United States to-day In two important
particulars. rhe cases involving the
controverted points have been on the
docket of the court for many months, and
their decision by the court has been anx-
lousy awaited a long time. The first
case was that popularity known as the
Social Circle long and short haul case,
which grew out Of the complaint OF the
James and Meyer Buggy Company against
the Cincinnati Southern. Western and
Atlantic, and the Georgia Railroad Com
panies, that they charged the same for
transporting buggies from Cincinnati TO
Augusta, Ga, 6i5 miles, as from Cincin-
natl to Atlanta, Ga, AS miles, and ~
cents more a hundred on buggles 70 so
clal Circle, between Atlanta and Au-
gusta. than TO either of the other places.
II was also charged that the rate OF Sl'V'
to Atlanta was excessive, as compared
with the same rate TO Augusta, Ill mics
longer haul, and that the charge OF sl.o,
undue. As TO the latter rates. the ran
roads claimed that the goods were not
carried to that point under a common
control. management, or arrangement
Or continuous carriage or shipment, nut
that the additional 30 cents per hundred
nounds wac the local charge Tor sitliiai
service by the Georgia Railroad 'onip""s,
and that therefore the case OF soons
carried TO Social Circle was not w-thih
the provisions Of the act
THE COMMERCIAL ORDER
Tho interstate commerce commission or
dered the railroads 20 make the rates Oh
Goods no more to Social Circle than 10
Augusta. and on the articles IN question
the commission fixed the rate from I'm
cinnati 10 Atlanta at 81 a hundred. ne
case came to the Supreme court OF 'ie
United States from the Court Appears
from the Firth circuit. whose judgment
sustained the order OF the COMMISSION
except as to fixing the rates.,
II was argued on behalf OF the com
mission that the power TO pass upon ,''e
reasonableness Of existing rates IMPLIED a
r,eht 10 prescribe rates. This, the court
saws is not neces iarily so. The reason
ableness OF the rate in a given case, de-
nends on the facts. and the function oil
the commission is 10 consider these facts
and give them their proper weight.
the commission. instead OF wltnhoidihs
Judgment I'm such matter until an issue
shall be made and the facts found itself
Axes a rate, that rate Is preiudged py the
commission to be reasonable. The ludg-
ment of the Court Of Appeals was Affirm
ed.
IMPORT RATE CASE.
The other case was that kn ,~n as the
import rate case. involving thu question
OF rates upon freights ing 'i,el at ir'
Atlantic seaporls. destined Tor penis
I'm the interior. II came from the court
OF Appeals from the Second ci''v 1. which
had sustained the order OF the Interstate
Commerce Commission that Imported
traffic Transported to any place In tn
United states from point Of entry or
place Of reception, whether ~ This coun-
try or In an adjacent courr' IS re.
orired TO be taken on the inlard taitH
governing other freghts. which the leN's
and Pacific Railroad Comptny hi1 I,-
fused ~ obey. The order Vas ISSUED al
the instance OF Boards Of Trade oil u'v
seabosrd cities. which com1"'h 81 ua'
the railroads, by taking impor'eu iIel-h's
at less than domestic, disci'nlhi'"'
against the products OF this country
The opinion traversed the Iacts IN ,he
case and concluded that the commission
was bound to consider all the conditions
governing the carrying of traffic and was
not bound 10 any hard and fast rule.
The interests of others besides shippers
at Atlantic ports are TO be considered
by the commission. and when thus con-
sldered. the court Is Of the opinion that
the order Of the commission will be found
TO be unwarranted.
The judgments Of the courts below sus-
tanning the order OF the commission was
reversed and the Circuit Court directed
TO dismiss the bill against the railroad
company. From the judgment in the
last case Mr. Justice Harlan lissented.
chief Justice Fuller md Mr.. Justice
Brown united with Mr.. Justice Harlan in
dissenting from the judgment Of the
Court.