The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-25

Washington. May 24.-In the supreme
court today Justice Peclxham handed
down an opinion in the case of L. e
Parsons, late district attorney for the
northern district of Alabama, appealed
from the court OF claims. The decision
was adverse to Parsons claim that he
was entitled, under section 769, re-
vised statutes, to hold Office for four
years Notwithstanding the presidents
order of removal Justice Peckham
said that while the appointment was
for four years, it might be terminated
earlier at the discretion of the presi-
dent. The judgment Of the court of
claims was affirmed.
The determination of this case has
been looked forward to with interest
because of its possible effect upon the
removal of Office holders incident to
the change Of administration. Parsons
was removed from the office of United
States district attorney in Alabama in
1898. having been appointed in 1857.
He wrote a letter to the president,
refusing TO surrender the place on the
ground that as he had been appointed
Tor a term OF four years, the president
had no right to remove him before the
expiration of that time. He has fought
the case through the various federal
courts on this theory, losing in the
lower courts as he did today in the su-
preme court. Parsons has, however,
not been in possession of the Office dur
ing the contest. On the day he was
removed Emmett O'Neill was appointed
to succeed him and to him Parsons
surrendered the Office after an order
was issued to him by the circuit court
to do so. He prosecuted the case in
another basis from that time.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
The supreme court decided two cases
today holding that the United States
interstate commerce commission has no
power to prescribe rates on railroads
which may control in the future. The
cases were those Of the commission VS..
the Cincinnati & New Orleans Railroad
company and the Florida & Western
Juetdce Brewer said: 1T is not to be
supposed that congress would eve.
auHnoIgze an administrative body 10
establish rates without inquiry and eX-
pectaIion; 10 involve, as it were, out Of
its own consciousness the satisfactory
solution OF the difficult problem of just
and reasonable rates for all the vaTi-
Gus roads in the country. And if it had
intended TO grant the power to eStab-
hsh rates it would have said so in IN
miStakable terms. II this connection
II must be borne in mind that the com
mission is not limited in its inquiry
and action TO cases III which a formal
complaint mas been made. But under
section IL il may institute inquiry or
its own motion in the same manner
and to the same effect as though COM
plant had been made.
Attention is also called to the fact
that the law grants no power even 10
fix a maximum or minimum rate, and
I'll i- .7,- hat
gress did not give the express power
70 the commission. it did not intend 10
secure the same result indirectly by
empowering the tribunal to determine
what in reference to the past was rea-
sonable and just, whether as maxi |
mum. minimum or absolute, and to
enable it to obtain from the courts a
peTemptory order that in the future
che railroad companies should follow
the rates thus determined to have been !
in the past reasonable and just
The opinion was rendered on ques- |
tioms certified by United States circuit |
court of appeals for the Sixth circuit |
There vas no prepared opinion in the |
Florida case, the conclusions being the |
same as in the above. Justice Harlan !
dissented in both cases.
An important decision interpreting |
the interstate commerce law was made |
in the case of c. s. Dwight from the /
!
grew out of competition between the /
Panhandle and the Baltimore & Chic |
roads fer the beer-carrying business
of T. H. BTuening, a wholesale beer
dealer Of Plftsburg. The rate charged !,
by bpth roads for beer was 10
cents per hundred between Cincinnati
and PittSburg- The Paniladle road |
had side,Eack at Bruening's
place of business. so it could unload
shipments into his premises. while it |
cost him 3j2 cents per i0D TO haul the
goods from the Baltimore & Ohio sta
tiCn. To secure the business the Balti-
more & Ohio made an arrangement to
deliver the goods to Bruening's ware
house, and afterward Bruening offered
TO do the hauling himself for 31S cents
per hundred. paying the railroad I5c.
per 100 for freight and presenting a
bill for 31h cents per 100 to the
railroad 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.
goods were hauled. Com
plant was made that the arrangement
was in violation Of section of the in
terstate commerce act, prohibiting re-
bates, drawbacks. etc, and first the
circuit court and today the supreme
court sustained this contention. 1t was
contended by the railroad company
that it was necessary 10 offer the in
ducement TO Mr.. Bruening to get his
business but not to Mr. Wolf because
he would have TO do carting which ever
line he patronized, but the court did
not sustain this contention. The law,
said Justice Brewer, was designed to
every carrier to give equal
rights to all shippers over its road and
TO forbid it by any device to enforce
higher charges against one than an
other 1t was contended also that the
section was not intended to prohibit
carrier from rendering more service
to one shipper than another for the /,
same charge but that for the same |
service charges should be. equal but {
the court holds that the practical effect
IN this case was 20 charge one man
10 cents and another liz for the same
and that there was a dis !
I
Another case involving the interstate I
commerce law was that of E NJ. Par /
sons. plaintiff in error, vs. the Chicago /
& Northwest railway, in which Par 7
sors, an Iowa shipper, sued for $3.50 [
IN account of alleged determinations {
n freights on corn and oats between
iowa and Nebraska points TO the east L
IN seaboard. The company in 1887 I