The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-05-25
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Important Decisions by Supreme Court in
Two Cases.

Washington, May 24.-The United
States supreme court has decided two
cases today holding that the United
States interstate commerce commission
has no power to prescribe rates which
may have control in the future. The
cases were those of the commission versus
the Cincinnati and New Orleans railroad
company and the Florida and Western
companies.
The supreme court has affirmed the de-
cision of the court below in the case of
G. S. Wright of Pittsburg, Pa, charged
with violation of the portion of the
Interstate commerce law prohibiting dis
beer to pay for damage. This action was
held to be in violation of the law.
In the Cincinnati, New Orleans and
Texas Pacific case, various railroads were
concerned and the case was originally
instituted by the freight bureaus of Chi
cago and Cincinnati and the Cincinnati
Chamber of Commerce. The question
involved was whether Congress intended
to confer upon the interstate commerce
commission power to fix rates. The
opinion was rendered by Justice Brewer
The gist of the opinion is found in the
following paragraph:
stUndef the interstate commerce act
the commission has no power to prescribe
the tariff of rates which shall control in
the future and therefore cannot invoke
Judgment in mandamus from the courts
to enforce any such tariff by it pre-
scribed. -
Continuing, Justice Brewer asks:
Has the commission no functions to
perform in respect to matters of rates?'
Replying to his own question, he said:
'Unquestionably it has and most impor-
tant duties in respect to this m after It
is charged with the general duty of in
curing as to the management of bust
ness OF railroad companies a nd has the
right to compel full and complete infor-
nation as to the manner in which such
companies are transacting their business,
and with this information it is charged
with the duty of seeing that there is no
violation of the long and short haul
clause; that there is no discrimination
between individual shippers and that
nothing is done by rebate or otherwise to
give preference to one against another,
that no undue preference is given to one
place against another, but that in all
things equality of right which is the
great purpose of the interstate COM
merce actsshall be secured to shippers. -
er said:
1t is not to be supposed that Congress
would ever authorize an administrative
body to establish rates without INQUIRY
and examination; to evolve as it were.
out of its own consciousness the satisfac-
tory solution of the difficult problem of
just and reasonable rates for all the va
rious roads in the country. And if it
had intended to grant the power to es-
tablish rates it would have said so in
unmistakable terms. 1t must be borne
in mind that the commission is not limit
ed in its inquiry and action to cases in
which a formal complaint has been made.
but that under section 10 it may institute
inquiry 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 minimum rate and the CON
clusion is drawn that as Congress did not
give the express power to the commi s.
sion it did not intend to secure the same
result indirectly by empowering that
tribunal to determine what in reference
to the past was reasonable and lust:
whether as maximum, minimum or alb
solute and then enable it to obtain from
the courts a premptory order that in the
future the railroad companies should
follow the rates thus determined to have
been in the past reasonable and Just.
The opinion was rendered on questions
by the United States Circuit court of an
peals for the sixth circuit. There was no
prepared opinion in the Florida case,
the conclusions being the same as in
the above. Justice Harlan dissented in
botb cacpS