Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-25
THE SUPREME COURT.
Adjournment Of The Body Until Next
October.
SOME lRPORTAaI DECISIONS.
Interstate Commission Without Power
10 Prescribe Railway Rates.
ruE RIGHT TO HOLD OFFICE.
Judgment Against Parsons, of Ma
hnmn. Who Insisted On Holding
an Attorncyship NOtwitLsi"""ihS
Removal by President, Affirmed.

Removal by President. Affirmed.
WASHINGTON. May 2l-Af,cr render
lng final decisions i'm the thirty-six cases
and giving attention TO other business
Incident TO the last sitting Of the term
The United states Supreme Court ad-
iourncd to-day until next October When
.he court crier announced the final ad-
ournmcnt for the term. there were APP
parenty $50 cases on the docket undi5-
posed Of but there were actually St5
rascs. twcnty-one having already been ar
rucd and submitted This is small
pr number than the records of the court
b,ve shown for thirty years. At the
conclusion OF the term ending year
aco there were J3g cases undisposed Of
ana since then 2l have been added,
making a total Of a7 contained in the
docket for The year OF this number 45'
have been finally disposed OF. and the
principal labor done on others.
Included in the twenty-one cases
which have been argued. but i'm "hich
10 opinions have been rendered. are seVe-
raj of considerable Importance among
them the Nebraska maximum freight
rate case. the controversy between the
Boydcn Powcr-Brake and the Westing-
bouse Air-Brake companies. as TO the
validity OF the lattcr's inventions the
Alabama Midland case. involving the
validity of the long and short haul clause
of the interstate commerce act; the
gouthern Pacific land case, and two OF
three important private land-grant cases.
The court decided two cases to-day
holding that the Interstate Commerce
Commission has no power TO prescriDe
rates on railroads which may control lh
tho future The cases were those OF
Commission vs.. the Cincinnati and New
Orleans Railroad Company. and the
Florida and Western company
In the Cincinnati and New Orleans case
various railroads We're Interested. ana
the case was originally instituted by the
freight bureaus of Chicago and the cham
Der of Commerce of Chicago. The Ques-
ti0n involved was whether Congress IN
tended 10 confer on the Interstate Com
merce Commission power TO fix rates.
The opinion was rendered by Justice
Brewer. The gist Of the opinion i5 found
i'm the following paragraph:
Under the interstate commerce act
the commission has no power 10 prescribe
the tariff OF rates which shall control 10
the future, and therefore cannot invoke
judgment I'm mandamus from the courts
90 enforce any such tariff 10y 1t pre-
scribed."
Conunuing Judge Brewer asked: "IIas
the commission no functions to perform
TN respect TO the matter of ratcs| Re
plying 20 his own question. he said
DUTIES OF COMMISSION.
Tnquestionaby. it has, and most inn
pOrtanl duties In respect 10 This matter.
Do is charged with the general duty Of
inquirrg as TO tine management of rail-
road companies. and has the right TO
compel fun and complete Information ass
10 the manner I'm which companies are
translcting their business. And with this
information. 10 is charged with the duty
of seeing there is no violation of the
long and shOrt-haul clause; that there is
no discrimination between individual ship
pcrs. and that nothing is done 10y rebate
or otherwise 20 give preference to one
against another; that no undue prefer
cuct is given 10 one place against an
other bur th8t in am thiucs that equality
O. right which is the great purpose of the
~ ferstate commerce act shalI De Sccur- u
20 shippers
"It is not TO De supposed that Congress
would ever authorize am administrative
body TO establish rates without inquiry
and examination; TO evolve. as IL We're. out
OF ita own consciousness the satisfactory
solution of the difncult problem of just
and reasonable rates for all The various
roads iu the country. And If il had in
tended TO grant the power TO establish
rates. it would have said so in unmis-
taxable terms. ln this connection lt must
Doe borne in mind that the commission
ls not limited u ITS inquiry ana dclOn
20 cases in which a formal complaint has
DCcn made. but that under section l3. ID
may institute inquiry on its own motion
in the same manner 10 aud the same
effect as though complaint had been
made
Attention is also called 10 the fact that
The law grants no power even 10 fN q
maNimum or minimum rate, ana the
conclusion ls drawn that. "as Congress
dld not give the express power 10 the com
mission. it did not intend TO secure the
same result indirectly 10y empowering
that tribunal TO determine what in rcfe-
renee 10 the past was reasonable ana
just. whether as maximum, minimum. or
absolute. and then enable IL TO obtain
from the courts peremptory order that
iu the future the railroad companies
should follow The rates thus determined
10 have been in the past reasonable and
just
The opinion was rendered on questions
certined iy The United states Circuit
Court OF Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. |
There was 40 prepared opposition i'm the
Florida case, the conclusion being the
same as above. Justice Harlan ais |
sented in both cases.
EEER-CARRYING CASE.
Another important decision interpreting !
the interstate commerce law was made |
to-day u the case OF a.. 5. Wright, plain !
tin in error. ~. the United States. from |
the District Court for The Western Dis |
trlCt Of Pennsylvania. The case grew out |
oi competition between the Panhandle |
and the Baltimore and Ohio roads for the |
beer-carrying business of T. H. Bruenng, |
wholesale beer-dealer of Pttsburg !
who purchased his beer by the carload !
from Cincinnati. The rate charged by !
both roads for beer was 10 cents per lOJI
rOutIs between Cincinnati aud Pittsourg. |
The Panhandle road had a sidc-track a
Erueuius place OF business. so that II !
could unload shipments into his premises, !
while DO cost him - cents per hundred 1
TO maui the goods from the Baltimore ana 1
ono station TO secure the business lhe
Baltimore ana ONO made an arrangement /
90 deliver the goods al Eruening's ware !
house. and afterward Bruening offered 20 !
do the hauling himself for 1-2 cents per /
hundred, paying the railroad 10 cents per |
hundred for freleht ana presenting "a |
monthly bin for 1-2 cents per hundred |
weight 10 the railroad company, which |
was paid Henry Wolfe another dealer, /
paid the same gate and paid for his |
hauling The distance being nearly as |
great as that Mr Bruenings s goods were
hauled. Complaint was made that the /
arrangement was in violation Of section
OF the Interstate commerce act pro- |
hiOitiug rebates, draw backs, etc. E1d FIRST !
Inc CIRCUIT ANNiA anu Ao-AAtto tltt Nllli NtAlN'
Court sustained this contention.
PARSONS CASE.
In the case of D.. =. Parsons. late Dis \
trict Attorney for the Northern District |
of Alabama. appealed from The Court OF |
Claims. Justice Pcckham handed down |
me decision OF the court.
The decision was adverse 10 ParsOns's |
claim thar ne was entitled. under section
16g OF the Revised Statutes. 10 hold his |
office Cor four years not"iihstanding the
Presidents order Of removal justice