The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-05-25
IMPORTANT DECISION
Is Rendered by Judge Brewer In Regard
to Rates on Railroads,
AGAINST THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION
Has No Power to prcscribc Rates
Says Judge Isrewcr-Gannot I'm
woke NtnndnItaus from Courts 10
Enforce Any Tnrilr It May Pre-.
scrtbc-'Fheir Duty Defined.
washington, .. q, May "a, 1897.

Washington. D. c., May "a. 1897.
After rendering final decisions In
thirty-siN cases and giving at
tent.on to other business Incident to the
last sitting of the term, the United States
Supreme Court adjourned to-day until
next October. When the court cryer an
nounced the final adjournment for the
term there were apparently $50 cases OF,
the docket undisposed OF, but there were
actually 1853 cases twentX-one having al
ready been argued and submitted
Included In the twenty-one cases
which have been argued, but in which
no opinions have been rendered, are
several OF considerable Importance.
Among them are: @
The Nebraska Maximum Freight Rate
case; the controversy between the Bay
den Power Brake and the Westing
house Air Brake company as to the va
lldity OF the latter's invention; the Ala
bama Midland case, involving the va
lidity Of the long and short haul clause
OF the Interstate Commerce act; the
Southern Pacific Land case and two or
three important private land grant cases.
CANNOT PRESCRIBE RATES
The court decided two cases to-day,
holding that the United States Inter
state Commerce Commission has no
power 10 prescribe rates on railroads
which may control In the future. The
cases were those Of the Commission vs.
the Cincinnati anu New Orleans Rail-
road company, and the Florida and
Western company.
In the Clncinnati New Orleans and
Texas case various railroads were con
cerned. and the case was originally In
stitutcd by the freight bureaus of Chi
caEO, and the Cincinnati Chamber Of
Commerce. The question involved was
whether Congress intended to confer
upon the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion power to fix ates. The opinion was
t-fetidered by Stct.~ Brp yet!ts Il haa sisr
| Of the 'op.nion Is found in the following.
| paragraph:
HAS NO POWER.
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
| judgment In mandamus from the
| courts to enforce any such tariff by 1t
prescribed"
Continuing. Justice Brewer asked "IIas
the commission no function to perform
In respect to matter of rates?" Reply
| Ing to his own question he said: "Un-
ques:ionably 1t has, and most important
duties In respect to this matter. II Is
| charged with the general duty Of In
curing as 10 the management Of the
business Of railroad companies and has
the right TO compel full and complete
| Information as TO the manner In which
sueh companies are transacting their
business. And with this informa ton It
Is charged with the duty or seeing that
there are no violation OF the long and
snort haul clause; that there IS no dis
elimination between individual ship
pers and that nothing Is done by rebate
or otherwise to give preference 10 one
against another; that no undue prefer
ence Is given to one place against an
other, bus that I'm all things that equality
or right which its the great purpose Of the
Interstate Commerce &C. shall be Sc
cured to shippers"
NOT AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.
1T is not to be supposed that Congress
would ever authorize an administrative
body to establish rates Without inquiry
ana examination; to evolve, a. It were,
out OF Its own consciousness the sa It's
factory solution OF the difficult problem
| or just and reasonable rates for all the
various roads In the country. And II It
had intended TO grant the power to es-
tabl!sh rates it would have said 80 in
| unmistakable terms. In this connection
| 1t must be borne In mind that the COM
mission Is not limited in its inquiry and
action to cases In which q formal COM
plant has not been made but that un-
der section 13 It may institute inquiry
| on Its own motion in the same manner
and to the same effect as though COM
plant had been made"
Law GRANTS NO POWER.
alteNllOn is also calieQ to the fact
that the law grants no power, even to
fix maximum or minimum rate, and
the conclusion IS drawn that "as Con-
gress did not give the express power to
the commission It did no. intend to So
cure the same result Indirectly by en-
powering that tribunal to determine
what. IN reference to the past, was rea-
sonable and just, whether as maxlmum
minimum or absolute and then enable
1t 10 obtain from the courts q peremptory
order that In the future the railroad
companies should follow the rates thus
determined TO have been In the past
rea soma bic 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.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT DECISION
Another important decision interpret
made to-day In the case CT c. S. Wright
PLAINTIFF in error Us. the United States.
from the District Court for the Western
District Of Pennsylvania. The ca Sc
grows out Of competition between the
Panhandle and the Baltimore and Ohio
roads for the beer carrying business OF
f. III. Bruening wholesale Beer dealer.
Of Pittsburg, who purah .sed his beer by
the carload f:om Cincinnati The rates
charged by both roads for beer was 15