Birmingham state herald., 1897-05-25
Handed Down by United States
 Supreme Court.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
Figures Prominently in One of Them-The
 Parsons Case Finally Disposed of :, Lower Courts Sustained.


 ing attention to other business incidenIt to the last sitting of the term, the United States supreme court adjourned today until next october. When the court crier announced the final adjournment. for the 4sterm, there was apparently 3S0 cases on the docket undisposed of, but there were actually 359 cases twenlty-one having all ready been argued and submitted. 1h.s is a smaller number than the records of the court have shown for thirty ye-rs. At the conclusion cf the '.erm e-d..g a year ago, there were 535 eases uf4dlsposed Of and since then 2SO have b.en aaded, making a total or S17 contained In the docket for the year. Of thIs number 4of have been tnaily disposed of and the principal labor done in ltwenty-one ohefs. Incluaed in the twenty-one eases Whicn have been argued, but in winch no op.n- ion has been rendered, are several Of con- siderable importance. Among them are the Nebraska minimum freight rate case the controversy between the Bayien power brake ard the Westinghouse Ar Brake company as to the val!afty of the latter's invention, the Alabama Midland case involving the validity of the long and short haul clause of th5 initersuate commerce act; the Southern Pacific lana case ard two or three other important private land grant cases. The court de-
 
 United States interstate commerce com mission has no power to prescribe ral- -es on railroads which may control in the fu- ture. The cases wt2re those CT the com - mission vs. the Cincinnati and New Or tleart5 Railway company, and the t'forlda and Western company.
 In the Cincinnati and New Orleans and Texas case, various railroads were con- cerned and the case was originally in sitituted by the freight bureau Of Chicago
 a1,ea,- of The question involved was whether con- gresS intended to confer upon the inter State commerce commission power to hX rates. The opinion was rendered by Jus tbce Brewer. The gislt of the opinion Of t1t5 fudge is in the following paragraph:
 Urder the interstate commerce alct, the commission has no power to prescribe the tariff eff rates which shall control in the futltre and therefore cannot invoke Judgment in mandamus from the courts to ertscGce any such tariff by 1t preScrlpe11 a Continuing, Justice Brewer asked; Has the commission no functions to proffer in the matter of rates?" Reply ing to his own question, he sand: Un- questionably 1t has, and most important duties in respect to this matter. It is charged with the general duty of inquir- ing as to the management of the business of railroad companies and has the right to compel full and complete information scto the manner in which such com panies are transacting their business And with this information 1t Is charged with the duty of seeing that there is no violation of the long and short haul clauses; that there is no discrimination between individual shippers and that nothing is done, by rebate or otherwise to give preference to one against another; that no undue preference is given ro 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.
 tIt is not to be supposed that congress would even authorize an administrative treaty to establish rates without inquiry and examination; to evolve, as 1t were, out of it's own consciousness the satis- factory solution of the difficult problem of just and reasona ble rates for all the various roads in the coun-ry, And, if it had intended to grant the power to es- tablsh rates, 1t would have said so in unmis stakable terms. In this connection it must be borne in mind that the conn mission is not limited in its inquiry and action TO cases in which formal com plaint has been made, but that under sec ton 13 1t may institute inquiry on it's own motion in the same manner and to the same effeca as though complaint had b=en made"
 Attention is also called to the fact that the law grants no power even to fix maximum or minimum rate, and the con- clusion is drawn that as congress did not give the express power to the com mission 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 maximum, minimum or ab- solute, and then enable it 10 obtain from the courts a peremptory order that in the future the railroad companies should fol- low the rates thus determined to have been in the past req sonable and ipst
 The opinion was rendered on questions certified by the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth district. There was no prepared opinion in the Florida case, tha conclusion being the same as in the above.
 Justice Harlan ddssented in both cases.
 Another impcrtant decision interpret ing the interstate commerce law was made today in the case of c. s. Wight plaintiff in error vs. the United States, from the district court fer the Western district of. Pennsylvania. The car.e grew out of competition between the Pan-han- dle and the Baltimore and Ohio reads for the beer carrying business of F. H. Bruenning, a wholesale beer d:aler of Pittsburg, who purchased his beer by the car load from Cincinnati
 The rates charged by both roads for beer was 15 cents per hundred pounds be- tween Cincinnati ti and Pittsburg. The Panhandle road had side track at Bruenning'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 Baltimore and Ohio sta upn- To secure the business the Baltimore and Ohio made an arrange ment to deliver the goods at Bruenning's s warehouse and afterwards Bruenning of fered to do the hauling himself for 3k cents per hundred, paying the railroad 15 cents per- hundred for freight and pre- senting a monthly bill for 3b cents per hundred weight to the railrnad company which was paid. Henry Wolf. an-ther dealer. paid the same freight rates and also paid fir his hauling, the distarlce be- ing nearly hS great as MT. Bruenning's goods wena haailed. Complaint was male that the arrangement was In viola tion of section 2 of the Interstate commerce act prohibiting rebates, drawhac<s etc., and first the circuit court ard today the sl- preme court et,sts med this cortention.
 In the case of l.. E. Pars,ns.fate district attorney for the Northern district os Ala hama, appealed from t11e e-aIrtI of claims Justice Peclham fra rded down the de- cision of the count. The decision was ad- verse to Parsons clair, thet he was en- titled, under section 7ss of the revised