Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-31
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC
Two Decisions Of Importance by the
Federal Supreme Court.
,ovc AND. SHORT HAUL CASE.
Judgment of Court Of Appeals SUN
,otncd-Tmport Rate Cnse--Oire""
court Reverssd-Bil AS"i"s' ""
ro,d Ordered DisnIiSsed'

road Ordered DisnnSsed'
..surNGTON. d. c.. March 90
-,. interstate commerce law was the SUD
-.., ~ construction by the supreme
-, ~ the United states to-day in two
.,.,,t particulars The cases IN
'-'.t,.e The controverted points haye been
re docket Of the court for many
...ss and their decision by the court
r.. been anxiously awaited long time.
.-., s-st case was that popularity known
o.. social Circle long and short haul
II crew out Of the complaint Of the
80 q Meyer Buggy Company against
cincinnati Southern, Western ana
........ add the Georgia railroad COM
.. that they charged the same for
,...,ortlng busgies from Cincinnati 10
,.,ys,a. Ca. 645 miles, as from Cineln-
. ,o Atlanta. AS miles. and 30 cents
..,,s "a hundred on buggies to Social Cir
-. between Atlanta and Augusta. than
>, either Of the other places. II was
,,.. cbsreoI that the rate OF 500 to At
..-t, WAS excessive. as compared with
- .4ii.s rate to Augusta, l7l-mle-lonser
t.-I ana that the charge OF fl3I TO SO
,,.l circle was both excessive ana UNDUE
Ast. the latter. rate, the railroads claim
e. that the goods were not carried 10
.,,f n0.nt under a common cOntrS, man
cement. or Arrangement for continuous
s.fra.e or shipment, but that the adul-
ranal 60 cents per 100 pounds was me
oel. charge for similar service by ths
ceofea Railroad Company, ana that,
social circle was not within the provis-
i0rs 0f the act.
Tho Interstate Commerce Commission
ordered the railroads 10 make the rates on
Goods no more 10 Social Circle than 10
augusta and on the articles in question
tb. commission fixed the rate from Gin
cirpau 20 Atlanta at 81 hundred
Tine case came 10 the Supreme Court
of the United States from the Court OF
Appeals from the Fifth Circuit. whose
irdrinert sustained the order OF the COM
mission except as 20 fixing the rates. The
corclusiona Of the court on the points in
y0lvsd were:
The Georgia Railroad Company, by
entering into tho carriage Of foreign
frsiaht. by agreeing TO receive the goods
hy virtue of foreign through bills Of lad
nc. and 70 participate in through rates
.gI charges. thereby becomes part Of
continuous line for the continuous car
r.aee or shipment from one state TO an
Other and amenable 10 the Federal &C
ir respect TO such interstate commerce.
Having elected to enter into the carriage
az Interstate freight and thus subjected
Itself % the control OF the commission,
90 would not be competent for the com
raRv 10 limit that control, In respect 10
foreign traffic, 70 certain points on its
road and exclude other points.
2 There Is no provision in the act that
expressly. or by necessary implication,
c0nfers tie power on the commission TO
iix rates.
II was argued on behalf OF the commits
sion that the power TO pass upon the
res egsonableness Of existing rates implied
q right TO prescribe rates. This, the court
says is rot necessarily so. The reason
a0loness II the rate I'm given case de
pends on the facts and the function Of
the commission is to coIsider these facts
d. nd give them their proper weight. If the
commission. instead of Withholding judg-
Inent I'm such a matter until an issue shall
be made and the facts found, itself fixes
"a rate that rate IS prcjudgod by the COM
mission to be reasonable The judgment
of the Court Of Appeals was affirmed.
IMPORT-RATE CASE.
The other case was that known as the
impOrt-rate case involving the question
~ rates upon freights imported at Allan
t.c seap0rts. destined for points IN the
Interior 10 came from the Court Of Ap-
reais in the Second Circuit. which had
sustained the order Of the Interstate Com
merce Commission that Imported traffic
transported to any place in the United
States. from a point Of entry or place OF
reception. whether in this country or in
g. adjacent foreign country, is required
% De- taken on the inland tarin governing
other treights." which the Texas and Pa
cfe Railroad Company had refused TO
otev.
The order was issued at the instance
r. tte boards or trade of the seaboard
e.u-t. which complained that the rail-
Ioa.s hy taking imported freights at less
tl-t domestic ones. Disseminated against
The products Of this country. In It's an
Fvar ta ttc complaint OF the commission
thr railroad set up that II II did not ac-
Caft 'te mn0rt traffic at the joint ocean
and rail- rates, which II admitted was less
tna- ne rate charged by IL for carrying
domestic .ght from New Orleans to
san Francisco II would lose the business
altogether ilr II would go via the
lHhmus The Horn, or the Canadian Pa
clc road. without in the least benefit
ie TIE port OF people Of New Orleans.
tH without affecting the traffic In the
least because san Francisco merchants
-,stht .u the old country. and were not
Interest. "a in the route Of shipment.
The opinion travtrsed the facts in the
case ana concluded that the commission
"ts bound 20 consider all the conditions
governing the carrying OF traffic and was
Doc bound % any hard and fast rule. The
Interests OF others beside shippers at At
ltntc ports are 10 be considered by the
commit sion. and when thus considered
ilo court is of the opinion that the order
90 the commission will be found TO be
urWarrautel
Tho Judgment Of the court below, sus-
tanna the order OF the commission was
reversed. and the Circuit Court directed
i' dismiss the bin against the railroad
Company
From tie judgment in the last case Mr..
Justice Harlan dissegted. Chief-Justice
ItNer and Mr. Justice Brown united with
-r Justice Harlan in dissenting from
te il .sment Of the court.
PARDRIDGE PULLS OUT.