The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-05-25
By a Number Of Supreme Court
Opinions.
JUSTICE BREWER SAYS
IF Congress Had Intended For
the Commission
To Fix Rates, It Would Have
Said So Plainly.

CnaC congress would authorize an aQ-
ministrative body to establish rates
without inquiry and examination; to-
evolve as it were, out of its own con-
seriousness, the satisfactory solution of
the difficult problem of just rates for all
the various railroads in the country;
andif it had intended to grant the power
to establish rates it would have said
so in unn1Stakeab Bile terms. In this con-
nectiOn it must be borne in mind that
the commission is not limited in its in
Quiry and action to cases in which for
NAL complaint has been made but that
under section 10 it may institute in
quiry on its own motion in the same
manner and to the same effect as
though complaint had been made.
Attention is also called to the fact
that the law grants no power even to
fix a maximum or a minimum rate, and
the conclusion is drawn that as con-
gress did not give the express power to
the commission, it did not intend to Sc
cure the same result indirectly by other
means"
lions certified by the United States cir
cult court of appeals for the Sixth cir
cult There was no prepared opinion in
the Florida case, the conclusions being
the same as in the above. Justice Har-
land dissented in both cases.
An important decision Interpreting
the interstate commerce law was made
in the case of c. S. Wright, versus the
United States from the district court
for the western district of Pennsylva-
mia. The case grew out of competition
between the Panhandle and the BaIti-
more & Ohio roads for the beer carrying
business of F. B. Bruening, a whole
sale beer dealer of Pittsburg. The rate
charged by both roads for beer was 10
cents per hundred between Cincinnati
and Pittsburg. The Panhandle road
had a sidetrack at Bruening's place of
business SO that it could unload ship
ments into his premises while it cost
him 312 cents per hundred to haul the
goods from the Baltimore & Ohio sta
ton. To secure the business the Balti-
more & Ohio made an arrangement to
deliver the goods to Bruening's ware
house, and afterwards Bruening offer
ed to do the hauling himself for 315
cents per hundred, paying the railroad
Is cents per hundred for freight and
presenting a monthly bill for 31A cents
per hundred weight TO the railroad
company which was paid
Henry Wolf, another dealer, paid the
same freight rates and also paid for his
hauling, the distance being nearly as
great as Mr. Bruening's goods were
hauled. Complaint was made that the
arrangement was in violation of sec
ton of the interstate commerce act
prohibiting rebates, drawbacks, etc. and
first the circuit court and now the su-
prerne court Sustains this contention 1t
was commended by the railroad company
that 1t was necessary to offer the in
ducement to Mr.. Bruening to get his
business but not to Mr.. Wolf because he
would have to do cartinR whichever line
he patrOnized, but the court did not sIls-
tain this contention. The law said Jus
t1ce Brewer, designed to compel every
CdAA4GI u give equal rights to all shin
erS over Its road and to forbid it by any
device to enforce higher charges
against one than another 1t was con-
tended also that the section was not
intended to prohibit a carrier from rem
dering more service to one Shipper than
another for the same charge but that
for the same service the charge should
De equal but the court holds that the
practical effect in this case was to
charge one man Is cents and another
1l72 for the same service and that there
n z7V ir1r,f
Another case involving the inter-
state commerce law was that of E. NJ
Parsons, plaintiff in error versus the
Chicago & Northwestern railway in
which Parsons, an Iowa shipper sues
for 81 $50 on account of alleged discrin1-
nations in freightS on corn and oats
between Iowa and Nebraska points to
the easter SeabOard. The company in
1887 charged q cents per hundred
pounds from Iowa to Chicago and IS
cents from Nebraska to Chicago on
goods bound for New York, Boston.
Philadelphia or Baltimore, and Par
sons, claiming that the value of corn
and oats at Chicago was the seaboard
price, less the freights, attempted to
recover 10 cents per hundred on PAL, 10
pounds. The court in the judgment
given by Justice Brewer, sustains the
circuit court of appeals, which decided
in favor of the railroad company. Judge
Brewer said that there was no aver
ment that the railroads were unreason-
able, that Parsons is not seeking to
recover money inequitably taken from
him but on account of the wrongful
conduct of the company.
Before a shipper can recover under
the interstate commerce act he must
show not only the wrong done by the
carrier, but that it operated to his in
jury, says the court.
IF he had shipped to New York and
been charged the local rates, he might
have recovered any excess thereon
over through rates He did not ship
q New York and vet seeks
the extra sum he might have been
charged if he had shipped. Penalties
are not recoverable on mere possibih-
ties"
In the case of the interstate commerce
commission versus Detroit, Grand Rap
ids and Milwaukee Railway company
appealed from the circuit court of ap-
peals from the Sixth district by the
commission, 6the decree of the court be-
low was affirmed. The opinion was
rendered by Justice Shiras. The case
was based upon a petition of Stone &
Carten, retail merchants Of Ionia, Mich,
alleging violations of sections 2, 3 and
of the interstate commerce act. The
interstate commerce commission sus-
tanned the petition, but the courts did
not. The charge was that the rail-
road company furnished carriage free
to the merchants of Grand Rapids and
did not to the Ionia merchants. The
court held that the fourth section of
the act had in view only the transport
alton of passengers and property by
rail, and that when the passengers and
property are had and were discharged
from the cars at the cOmpany's station
at Grand Rapids for the same charges
as those received for similar services at
Ionia. the duties east upon the COM
pany were fulfilled.
Justice Shiras rendered the opinion in
the case of Aug. Ship1eigh vs.. the City
of San Angelo, Tex. In this case the
town of San Angelo sought to avoid
the payment of bonds by disoFganizing
the corporation and again reorganiz-