Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-08-16
THAT GREAT RAILROAD CASE
Argument Begun Before Judge
Simonton at GreenviIIe.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
Is the Po1t Which the Court Desires to Hear
Fully Discussed.
SEABoARDS COUNSEL OPENS THE BALL
The Allegations snd Reeitals of the Bill
Cover the Trouble From Its Incsp-
tion to the Beaking Out
of the War.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
sEABoARD'S COUNSEL OPENS THE BALI

perhaps more prominent and important
railroad representatives in Greenville
than have been congregated in South
Carolina in many years. Every promi-
nent railroad system in the Carolinas,
Virginia and Georgia are represented by
their executive officers or counsel and in
some cases by both. They have been
brought here by the argument before
United States Judge Simonton on the
novel issue of whether a federal court
has the right to enjoin railroads from
making considerable cuts in their freight
and passenger rates. There is now re-
straining order in force prohibiting the
Seaboard Air Line from carrying into
force a cut of 33 1-3 per cent, as well as
against all railroads belonging to the
Southern States Freight association, pro-
hibiting them from carrying out an 80
per cent reduction, with which 1t was
proposed to crush out the Seaboard Air
Line cut.
The action was brought by the Port
Royal and Augusta railroad, and all rail-
road interests, not excepting those out or
this territory, are materially interested
The case began this morning at 1890,
and an adjournment was had at $50 at
ter the first argument. Judge Simonton
early in the proceedings stripped them
of everything for the present except the
matter of jurisdiction, and the result or
the case will be dependent on whether
he claims or denies jurisdiction in enjoin-
| ing the parties to the rate cutting
The bill. which was presented by Mr..
| Smythe, recites the parties to the suit,
and then enters into a history OF the
placing of the vessels of the Baltimore,
l. Chesapeake and Richmond Steamboat
company on Chesapeake bay and 1t Is
| to this competition between the new line
of steamers and the Bay Line that the
original fight is due. The Seaboard Air
Line cut the rate 33 1-3 per cent because
of the fact that it took the position that
the Southern wished to force its connect
ing line of steamers out of business on
| Chesapeake bay, and this was met by a
cut of so per cent through the southern
States Freight association, of Wnlch the
Southern railway Is member The Dill
alleges that If such rates were permitted
to go into effect that the result would be
a perfect Generalization of all rates,
bringing disaster not only upon all rail-
| roads operating in the said territory, put
also to all the business interests OF the
country; that the commercia1 prosperity
of the country depends in very large
degree upon the stability of rates, and
upon their maintenance by the several
TRANSFORMATION companies; that this war
of rates will tend not only to demoralize
all railroad business, but will work ruin
to those engaged in commerce by unset
Ting values and putting at ruinous dis
advantage all who had purchased ana
shipped prior to such reduction, to those
purchasing after.
4rhe bill recites many other grounds for
the interference of the court. Returns
were made by all the railways cited, the
principal ones being those of the SOUTH
ern railway. Atlantic Coast Line, sea-
board Air Line and III. 5. Haines, COM
missioner of the association. The South-
ern takes the position that the 80 per
cent would have restored rates on the
line of its being a heroic measure and
that the 35 per cent reduction made py
the Seaboard Air Line was to ruin the
Southern railway and others; that the
said cut was a conspiracy and combina-
tion on the part of the railroads operat-
ing under the name of the Seiboard Air
Line and Baltimore Steam Packet COM
pany, and was illegal because of the rea-
son and purpose of the cut and that the
80 per cent cut was defensive entirely.
1t further charges that the Baltimore
Steam Packet company and the Sea-
board Air Line entered into close and
intimate connection, the object being to
consolidate, that the Southern attempt
ed in every way to avoid the necessity
of the contest proposed by this competi-
tor while standing out for its ally, the
Baltimore, Chesapeake and Richmond
Steamboat company 1t is this new com
petition alone that the Seaboard Is at
tempting to prohibit. The SeabOard Air
Line. on the other hand, contends among
other things, that it does not control or
direct the operations of the Baltimore
Steam Packet company. ohat the COM
pany controls itself; that the southern
owns or controls all lines into Atlanta
excepting the Seaboard Air Line and the
Western and Atlantic. The answer then
goes on to show that the Bay Line Of
fered every inducement to keep the
Southern from running line on Chesa-
peake bay and charged that the placing
Of the line had as its ultimate object by
the Southern in obtaining said line OF
steamers to break down Its sole competi-
tor for eastern business. 1t takes the
position that the Southern Is the con-
trolling factor in the Southern States
Freight association, which Is conspira-
cy and illegal combination discriminat-
ing against the Seaboard Air Line. 1t
charges that the Port Royal and Au-
gusta. being a member of this associa-
fion., should not complain of It's action,
as by its vote the so per cent reduction
could have been prevented. and that In
any event that road is not called upon
to be the guardian of the public, and that
its proposed reduction of 80 1-3 per cent
was not ruinous.
The only argument heard today was
the question of Jurisdiction, to which
Judgt Simonton said he would confine
the Issue for the present. Mr.. Henry A.
M. Smith of South Carolina, who APP
peared for the Seaboard Air line, made
the first argument. In brief, he took the
position that the interstate commerce
commission was the proper tribunal for
the hearing of such cases. and that 1t has
statutory power for the hearing Of such
matters; that the court had never been
asked to interfere except on an unrea-
sonabie rate, and that an unreasonable
rate was never complained of on a re-
duced rate. and that the court had no
light to interfere, as 1t was purely Leg
sslatiye function- The noart had no right,
he argued, to Interfere with legitimate
competition. There was no federal ques-
tion.inyolyed and the railroads interested
were not federal corporations. and the