The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-25
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
Findings of the Court in Interstate
Commerce and Other Cases.

>.
WASHINGTON, May Z4.-The United
States Supreme Court decided two cases to-
day, holding that the United States Inter-
state-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 & Texas Railroad Company and
the Florida & Western Company. In the
former various railroads were concerned
and the case was originally instituted by
the freight bureaus of Chicago and the Gin
cinnati Chamber of Commerce. The ques-
ton involved was whether Congress in
tended to confer upon the Interstate-com-
merce Commission power to fix rates The
opinion was rendered by Justice Brewer.
The gist of the opinion is found in the fol-
lowing 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, can
not invoke a judgment in mandamus from
the courts to enforce any such tariff by it
prescribed" Continuing, Justice Brewer
asked: Has the commission nosfunctions
to perform in respect to matter of rates?'
Replying to his own question he said:
"Unquestionably it has, and most impor-
tant duties in respect to this matter. 1t
Is charged with the general duty of in
quiring as to the management of the busi-
ness of railroad companies and has the
right to compel full and complete informa-
ton as to the manner in which such COM
panies are transacting their business. And
with this information it is charged with
the duty of seeing that there is no viola
ton of the ng-and-short-haul clause; that
there is no discrimination between individ-
ual shippers and that nothing is done by
or nf h yf.A to criNr
one against another; that no undue prefer
ence is given to one place against another,
but that in all things that equality of right
winch is the great purpose of Interstate
commerce shall be secured to shippers.
1t is not to be supposed that Congress
would ever authorize an administrative
body TO establish rates without inquiry and
examination; to weave, as it were, out of
its own consciousness the satisfactory So
luton 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 establish rates 1t would have
said so in unmiStakable terms. In this con-
nectiOn it must be borne in mind that that
commission is not limited in it's inquiry and
action to cases in which formal complaint
has been made, but that under Section 13
1t may institute inquiry on its own motion
in the same manner and to the same effect
as though complaint had been made" At
tention is also called to the fact that the
law grants no power even to fix maxi
mum or a minimum rate, and the conclu-
sion is drawn that as Congress did not
give the express power to the commission
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 just, whether as maximum
minimum or absolute and then enable it to
obtain from the courts peremptory 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
certified by the United States Circuit Court
of appeals 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 both cases.
An important decision interpreting the
interstate-commerce law was made in the
case of C. S. Wright VS.. the United States
from the District Court for the Western
district of Pennsylvania. The case grew
out of competition between the Panhandle
and the Baltimore & Ohio roads for the
beer carrying business of p. H. Bruening
a wholesale beer dealer of Pittsburg. The
rates charged by both roads for beer was
Is cents per hundred between Cincinnati
and Pittsburg The Panhandle road had a
sidetrack at Bruening's place of business
so that it could unload shipments into his
premises, while it cost him 31A cents per
hundred to haul the goods from the Balti-
more & Ohio station To secure the busi-
ness the Baltimore q Ohio made an ar
rangement to deliver the goods TO Bruen-
ing'S warehouse ana atterWdru Bruenlng
offered to do the hauling himself for 319
cents per hundred, paying the railroad Is
cents per hundred for freight and present
ing a mopthly bill for 312 cents a hundred
weight to the railroad company, which was
paid Henry Wolfe, 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. Com
plant was made that the arrangement was
in violation Of Section OF the Interstate
commerce act prohibiting rebates, draw
backs etc. and first the Circuit Court and
to-day the Supreme Court sustained this
contention. 1t was contended by the rail-
road company that it was necessary 10 offer
the inducement to Mr.. Bruening to get his
business but not to Mr.. Wolf. because he
would have to do carting whichever line he
patroniZed but the court did not sustain
this contention The law, said Justice
Brewer was designed to compel every car
rier TO give equal rights TO all shippers over
its road and to forbid it by any device TO
enforce higher charges against one than
another 1t was cOntended also that the
section was not intended To prohibit a car
rier from rendering more service TO one
shipper than another for the same charge
but that for the same service the charge
should be equal but the court holds that
the practical effect in this case was TO