The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-05-25
CLOSE OF SUPREME COURT.
THE BODY ADJoURNs UNTIL NEXT
OCTOBER.

These Already Argued and the
Number Thus Reduced to 359-The
Number the Smallest in 80 Years.
several Cases of Importance In
cIuded Among the Fl Already Ar
Eued But Not Passed Upon.
Washington, May 2.--After rendering
anal decisions in thirty-six cases and Civ
ing attention to other business incident to
the last sitting of the term, the United
states supreme court adjourned to-day I'M
Ill next October.
When the court crier announced the
final adjournment for the term, there was
anparently $50 cases on the docket undis-
posed of. but there were actually 359 cases,
twenty-one having already been argued
and submitted. This is a smaller num-
her than the records of the court have
shown for thirty years.
At the conclusion of the term ending
wear ago, there were 53S cases undisposed
of.and since then 2S4 have been added, max
ing total of SIT contained in the docket
for the year. OF this number 4S7 have
been finally disposed of and the principal
labor done in twenty-one others.
Included in the twenty-one cases which
have been argued. but IN which no opn-
ion has been rendered are several of con-
siderable Importance Among them are
the Nebraska maximum freight rate case,
the controversy between the Bayden
Power Brake Company and the Westing-
house Air Brake Company, as to the valid
ity of the latter's invention; the Alabama
Midland case, involving the validity of the
long and short haul clause of the inter-
state commerce act; the Southern Pacific
land case, and two or three other import
ant private land grant cases.
The court decided two cases to-day,
holding that the United Staes interstate
commerce commission has no power to pre-
scribe rates on railroads which may con-
troll in the future. The cases were those
of the Commission VS.. the Cincinnati, New
Orleans and Texas Pacific Railroad Com
pany and the Florida and Western Com
pany.
In the Cincinnati, New Orleans and Tex
as Pacific cases various railroads We're
concerned, and the case was originally in
sticuted by the freight bureau of Chicago
and the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce.
The question involved was whether con-
gress intended to confer upon the inter-
state commerce commission power IN fix
tice Brewer. The gist of the opinion of
the judge is in the following paragraph:
Under 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
a Judgment in mandamus from the courts
10 enforce any such tariff by it prescrib-
ed"
Continuing, Justice Brewer asked: HAS
the commission no functions to proffer in
respect to the matter of rates?" Reply
ing to his own question, he said: I'm
questonably it has, and most important
duties in respect to this matter. 1t is
charged with the general duty of inquir-
ing as to the management of the bust
ness of railroad companies and 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
clauses. that there is no discrimination be-
tween individual shippers, and that moth
ing 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
the equality of right, which is the great
purpose of the interstate commerce act
shall be secured to shippers.
1T is not to be supposed that congress
would even authorize an administrative
treaty to establish rates without inquiry
and examinations. to evolve, as it were
out of its own consciousness, the salts
factory solution of the difficult problem
of Just and reasonable rates for all the
various roads in the country. And, if it
had intended to grant the power to es-
tablish rates, 1t would have said so in I'M
mistakable terms. In this connection, it
must be borne in mind that the commits
sion is not limited in it's inquiry and ac-
ton to cases in which a formal complaint
has been made, but that under section 10
Il may institute inquiry on its own motion
III the same manner and to the same eff
1ect 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-
ciusion is drawn that as congress did not
give the express power TO the commission,
1t did not intend to secure the same result
indirectly by empowering the tribunal to
determine what in reference to the past
was reasonable and just. whether as max
imum. minimum or absolute, and then en-
able it to obtain from the courts a per-
emptory order that in the future the rail-
road companies should follow the rates
thus determined to have been in the past
reasonable and just
The opinion was rendered on questions
certified by the United States circuit court
OF appeals for the sixth circuit
There was no prepared opinion in the
Florida case. the conclusion being the
same as in the above. Justice Harlan
dissented in both cases.
Another important decision interpreting
the interstate commerce law was made
to-day in the case of c. S. Wright, plain
TN m error, VS.. the United States, from
me district court for the western district
OF pennsylvania. The case grew out of
competition between the Panhandle and
the Baltimore and Ohio roads for the beer
carving business of +. II. Bruenning, a
wholesale beer dealer of Pittsburg. who
purchased his beer by the carload from
Cincinnati.
Inc rates charged by both roads FOR
oeer was Is cents per hundred pounds be-
tween Cincinnati and Pittsburg The
Eanhandie road had sidetrack at Bruen-
he place OF business, 50 that II could
unload shipments into his premises, while
y cost him 3lz cents per hundred to haul
the goods from the Baltimore and Ohio
s'alloh. 10 secure the business the Bal
,uinore and Ohio made arrangements 20 de-
nESr the goods Of Bruenlng's warehouse,
80 ~ iaiterward Bruening offered 20 do the