The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-03-31
LONG And SNORT HAUL
The Supreme Court Of the United Staies De-
CideS Two Interstate Commerce Gases.
MUST BERO DISCRIMINATION IN ONE CASE
The Other Case Concerning The I'm.
port RRtc Involving the Question
of Rates Upon Frcights Imported
ut the Aflms-tic Scnports Destined
for Points in the Interior.

at the Aiinc-tic Scnports Destined
for Points in the Interior.
Washington. d. c., March a0.-The in
terstate commerce law was the subject
of construction by the Supreme Court
OF the United States to-day In two in-
porLant particulars. The cases involv-
Ing the controtcrted points have been on
the docket OF the court for many
months and their decision by the court
has been anxiously awaited long time
The first case was that popularity
known as the Social Circle Long and
Short Haul Case, and grew out of the
complaint of the James and Mayer Bug
gy Company against the Cincinnati
Southern. Western and Atlantic and the
Georgia Railroad Companies, that they
charged the same for transporting bug
giles from Cincinnati to August. Ca
645 miles. as from Cincinnati to Atlanta
4T4 miles. and thirty cents more II hun
dred on buggies to Social Circle between
Atlanta and Augusta, than TO either of
the other places. 1t was also charged
that the rate of S1.07 to Atlanta was eX-
cessive as compared with the same rate
to Augusta, Ill miles longer haul. and
that the charge of Sl.37 to Social Circle
was both excessive and undue. AS to
the latter rates the railroads claimed
that the goods were not carried TO that
point under a common control. nan
agcment or arrangement for continuous
carriage or shipment. but that the nd
ditional thirty cents per hundred pounds
was the local charge for similar service
by the Georgia Railroad Company. and
that. therefore. the case of goods car
red to Social Circle was not within the
provisions of the act.
I,,tA
ordered the railroads TO make the rate
on goods no more 10 Social Circle than
to Augusta.
The case came 10 the Supreme Cour,
from the Curt of Appeals from the
Fifth Circuit whose judgment sustained
the order of the commission. excep, as
to fixing the rates The conclusions Of
the court upon the points involved were.
l. The Georgia Rallrcad Company by
entering into the carriage o. foreign
freight, by agreeing II receive the gods
by virtue of foreign through bills of
iadins, and TO participate IN through
iao ami charges. thereby becomes
pari Of Il continuous line for the con: inu-
OTIS carriage or shipment from one state
to another. and amenable To the Federal
act, in respect to such interstate COM
merce. Having elected to enter intr
the carriage of interstate frtights and
thus subjected Itself to the control of the
commission il would not be competent
for the cOmpa..y to limit that control
in respect TO foreign traffic, to certain
points on its road and exclude other
points
,. There Is no provision in the act that
expressly or lly necessary implication
CDaie!s tae l9Wer on the commission to
tx rates.
II wa argued on behalf of the commits
SIN ma, ;1e power to pass upon the
reasonablencss of existing rates implied
II right To prescribe rates This. the
court says. is not necessarily so. The
reasonableness of the rate, in given
case depends on the facts and gives
lhein the!r proper weight. If the com
mission, instead of Withholding judu-
ment in such n matter until an issue
snail ne made and the facts found bself
iNes rate; that rate Is prcjudred by
the commission to be reasonable. The
Judgment of the Court of Appeals wo c
affirmed
me other case was that known as the
import rate case. involving the question
OF rates upon freights imported a, the
N'Lintlc s2aports. destined for points in
,he interior. 1t came from the Court of
appeals from the Second Circuit. which
had sustained the order Of the Inter, i,
state Commerce Commission. that i'm
ported traffic transported to any place
In the United States from q point of
entry or place of reception. whether in
this country or in an adjacent foreign
country, is required to be taken on the
Inland tariff governing othe. freights,
which the Texas and Pacific Railroad
Company had refused TO obey"
The order was issued at the Instance
of Boards of Trade OF the seaboard
cities.
The opinion traversed the facts In the
case and concluded that the commission
was bound to consider all the conditions
governing the carrying of traffic, and
was not bound to any hard and fast
rule The Court is of the opinion that
the order OF the commission will be
found to be unwarranted. The judg-
men;s of the courts below sustained the
order of the commissioned was reversed
and the court decided to dismiss the
bin against the railroad company.
The Raleigh Does Great Work.