The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-03-31
ALONG AND SHORT HAUL CASE
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES
THE SOCIAL CIRCLE FIGHT.

Railroads wholly Within state
Subject to the Interstate COmmis-
sion when They Enter Into Inter-
state Through business The
Power OF the Commission to Make
Rates Denied.
Washington, March 90-The interstate
commerce law was the subject OF con-
strucuon by the supreme court OF the
United States to-day in two Important
particulars. The cases involving the con-
troverted points have been on the docket
of the court for many months, and their
decision by the court has been anxiously
awaited a long time.
The first case was that popularly known
as the Social Circle long and short haui
case, and grew out OF the complaint or
the James & Meyer Buggy Company
against the Cincinnati Southern, Western
and Atlantic and the Georgia Railroad
Companies. that they charged the same
for transporting buggies from Cincinnati
to Augusta. Ga, 645 miles. as from Gin
cinnati to Atlanta, 474 miles. and so cents
more a hundred on buggies to Social
Circle, between Atlarda and Augusta than
to either of the other places. 1t was
dAFO alkti lhNA Nllt rate OA fAsVN ~ AZ
lanta was excessive, as compared with
the same rate to Augusta, III miles longer
haul, and that the charge of S1.S7 to So
cial Circle was both excessive and undue.
As to the latter rates the railroads
claimed that the goods were not car
ried to that point under common con-
troll. managements or arrangement for
continuous carriage or shipments, but
that the additional 30 cents per hundred
pounds was the local charge for similar
service by the Georgia Railroad Company
and that, therefore, the case Of goods
carried to Social Circle was not within
the provisions of the act.
The Interstate commerce commission or
dered the railroads TO make the rates on
goods no more to Social Circle than to
Augusta, and on the articles In question
the commission fixed the rate from Gin
cinnau TO Atlanta at 81 hundred. The
case came to the supreme court of the
United states from the court Of appeals
for the Fifth circuit, whose judgment sus-
tained the order OF the commission eX-
cept as to fixing the rates. The conclu-
sion OF the court upon the points Involved
were:
a. The Georgia Railroad Company. by
entering into the carriage OF foreign
freight, by agreeing to receive the goods
by virtue of foreign through bills of lad
ing, and TO participate in through rates
and charges, thereby becomes part Of a
continuous line, for the continuous car
riage or shipment from one state to an
other, and amenable to the federal act,
| in respect to such interstate commerce.
Having elected to enter into the carriage
| of interstate freights and thus subjected
| itself to the control OF the commission II
| would not be competent to the company 10
limit that control in respect to foreign
| traffic to certain points Of its road and
exclude other points.
| 2. There is no provision In the act that
| expressly, or by necessary implication,
| confers the power on the commission TO
| fix rates.
| sion that the power TO pass upon the rea-
! sonableness Of existing rates implied a
| right to prescribe rates. This, the court
says, is not necessarily so. The reason
| ableness of the rate, in given case, de-
| pends on the facts, and the function of
| the commission is to consider these facts
and give them their proper weight. II the
| commission, instead of Withholding Judg-
ment In such matter until an issue shall
| be made and the facts found, itself fixes
rate, that rate is prejudged by the COM
| mission to be reasonable The judgment
of the court Of appeals was affirmed.
| The other case was that known as the
import rate case, involving the question
| of rates upon freightS Imported at the At
| lantic seaports, destined for points in the
| interior. 1t came from the court of ap-
| peals from 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 point of entry or place OF
| reception, whether in this country or in an
| adjacent foreign country, Is required 20
be taken on the inland tariff governing
| other freights, which the Texas and Pa
cihc Railroad Company had refused to
obey. The order was issued at the in
| stance of boards of trade of the seaboard
cities, which complained that the rail-
roads by taking imported freight at less
| than domestic freight Disseminated
| against the products of this country In
| It's answer to the complaint of the COM
! mission the railroad set up that IL IL did
| not accept the import traffic at the ocean
and rail rate, which 1t was admitted was
less than the rate charged by it for carry
ing domestic freight from New Orleans to
| San Francisco, IL would lose the business
| altogether, for 1t would go via the 18TH
| mus. the Horn, or Canadian Pacific road
| without the least benefittng the port OF
| people of New Orleans, and without af-
fecting the traffic in the least because
| San Francisco merchants bought in the
old country and were not Interested In the
| route of shipment.
| 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
! interest Of others beside shippers at AT.
| lantic ports are TO be considered by the
| commission, and when thus considered the
| court is of the opinion that the order OF
the commission will be found to be unwar.
| ranted.
The Judgment of the courts below sus.
tanning the order of the commission was
| reversed and the circuit court directed Il
! dismiss the bill against the railroad com.
| pany.
From the decision in the last case Mr.
| Justice Harlan dissented Chief Justice
! Fuller and Mr.. Justice Brown united witt
| Mr.. Justice Harlan in dissenting from the
| judgment of the court.