New-York tribune., 1896-03-31
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. |A"H'
TWO IMPORTANT DECISIONS HANDED p'"' -
THE SUPREME COURT.

THE SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON March S.-The lh'eis'a'. r''..,,ro
law was the subject of construction pS ''e 49,.
Conr, Of the United States to-day IN TWO 'i ',.oa
particulars. The cases involving t.'e , q,
asn,s have been on the docket OF the cou'' 'o-
80 o,tbs and the decision OF the Court mas
N.an anxously awaited for long time -.
m. arst case was that popularity known as '''e
Social Circle long and snort haui paSe' az" 80
an, Of the complaint Of the James .x~
p,arv Connnany against the Cincinnati 0'.''
1useS s Atlantic and Georgia Railroad COM
,ss that they charged the same for rahspo..
tno buegies from Cincinnati to Augusta "a %
miles as from Cincinnati to Atlanta 1.' i, rr,,
N cents more hundred on bugsies 10 oocid' ~.
na,uasn Atlanta and Augusta. than 70 ethei vi ''.
,.s I, uas also charged that the rate ol
e,o- 80 Atlanta vas excessive as compared VIII" III.
sauoa rat. 70 Augusta III miles longer haui' aha
,bat the charge of 81 to Social circle "as 'o'
excessive and undue. .ho
A ~ the latter rates the railroads held 'ha' '"e
roods were not carried to that point uncef eOn'-
yron control MANAGEMENT or arrangement Ioi eo"
tinuous carriage or shipment. but tha' the
% cents hundred pounds was the iocai chdise 'o'
similar service by the Georgia Company. ana tna'
therefore the case OF goods carried 10 Socid' O''
was not within the provisions OF the act
The Interstate Commerce Commission oiue'e Wv
railroads 70 make the rates goods no more u
Social Circle than Augusta. ana on the ai''ses ~
In question the Commission nxeo the rae ..o
ctnnat TO Atlanta at 81 hundred Inc case o-
IN rho suprene Court of the United states from Inc
80" ~ ~ ~ annaals from the Fifth Circuit. whose
Judgment sustained the order OF the Ooh'nss"i,
sxcen as 10 fixing the rates. The conclusions VI
the Court upon the points involved were
The Georgia Railroad ComPany M BY ssfeens e e
ceive me goods by virtue Of foreign through oiiis
iading ana 10 participate in tnrougn ras e ine
for the continuous carriage or h Fedsral act
State TO another and aInenaoie nrce 70 ,nr Having
IN resnect TO such interstate cofhHleics
Elected TO enter into the carriage OF nsroi os
feghs and thus subjected d o Is be competent for the
company TO limit that control in respect 70 s
traffic. TO certain points on It's road anu e~e'De
There is no provision in the act that expressly or
BY neGes;ss % TX rates II was argued behalf
Of The Comn sion that the power TO pass upon 'e o
reasonae'e rihe rsiss This is not necessarily The
reasonabeness Of the rate in gwen cas-, Is
On On Consider these facts and give them their proper
weight II the Commission instead Of witnhoi's sh h
1uaSsnsna sra the facts found itself rate. that
rate is prejudged by the Commission TO De reason
The Judgment Of the Court Of Appeals was af-
hrmed. - s r,oeo
Railroad Company against the Commission ihVo'v
ing the order Of the Commission feqrins rIYng AZ e New
nrleans from foreign country TO San Francisco at
same rate as so1 n tSs states shipped
via New Orleans The Court overruled the CoInnls
S sion coneuSed ae that the bound
consider all the conditions governing .ns car casryae y
RI rule The interests Of others besides shippers at
Atlantic ports are to be conslderea Dy une ~ the
Opinion that the order of the Commission WI be De
found to be unwarranted The judgment .rd,s OF ,ne
ns0w an the the
to dismiss the bin against the rsroaa f,sf soTpshy psse
Fuller Justice Brown and Justice Harlan dissented