The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-17
The Court Takes It's Action On the
Ground of No Jurisdiction.
Business Men of the Inland Empires
Metropolis Objected Becsuse
TransconffnentaI Railroads bx-
osted q Higher Rate for Through
Freight From Eastern Terminals
to Spokane Than to Terminal
Points On the sound-Dufies of the
Interstate Commerce Commission.

brought by the merchants OF Spokane
against the Northern Pacific Railway
Company to enforce decision OF the In
.erstats commerce. commission ia the case
OF the Merchants Union. Of Spokane.
against the Northern Pacific and the
Union Pacific Railroad companies.
In the decision referred TO. the commits
eion ordered the defendant companies 10
put n effect on January /. 1895. tarin rates
on ali classified traffic from their Eastern
terminals to Spokane Is per cent less
than the rates in effect prior 10 the render
ing 0, the decision and order.
Rates en- ten classes were named spe-
cilcauy ia dollars and cents. beyond which
the railroads were not allowed TO charge
In the suit brought against the receivers
OF the Northern Pacific Railroad Company
and to which the Northern Pacific Rail-
way Company fell heir. Holly. Marks &
co. ct al, merchants of the city OF spo-
kane were the plaintiffs. The matter was
referred by Judge Hsnford 70 Mr.. l. ;.
n. sawyer, Of san Francisco, as special
master In chancery. The taking OF evil
aence rs the master occupied about two
months. and. SIX months ago, his report,
which was in favor OF the receivers OF the
Northern Pacific. was filed at Spokane.
Judge Hanford's opinion in the case. dis
missing the action. was filed in the Fed
erai court yesterday. He quotes largely
from tbs report Of Special Master in
o'hancery sawyer and ends by disrnissing
the action on the ground OF no jurisdiction.
TIE court says in part:
Spokane Is one Of the most ambitious
and promising Interior cities OF tae North
wtsi, II has n1any natural and acquired
advantages as = Site for great manufac-
turing and commercial city, but X Is stu
ated 40 miles from the seaboard, and IS
whally dependent upon railroads as car
riers 81 it's commerce. The merchants and
business men Of Spokane being discon-
tented because the Tanscontnental rail-
roads We're exaeting a higher rate Tor
through freight from Eastern terminals 20
Spokane than they weTe receiving Tor
through freight from the East delivered to
Portland and terminal points on Puget
soand organized the Merchants Union.
and - that name prosecuted complaint
before the interstate commerce Cofnmis-
sion against The Northern Pacific Railroad
Company. which proceeding resulted ia the
order referred TO-.
After quoting from the report Of Special
Master sawyer. the court says:
"Tae master has analysed the pleadlngs
and shown IN hts report;
First. That the proceeding is founded
on section y or the interstate commerce
Law and has specific object. TO enforce
decision and order 81 the interstate COM
faGrce commission.
Second. IL such a proceeding the court
has no general power to adjust the differ
cnceS between the Htigants. or 10 correct
ABUSES iu the conduct OF is business by
railroad company. and unless a valid order
has been made hy the Interstate commerce
commission and violated By the railroas
company no relief can be granted TO The
petitioners
Third The interstate commerce COM
mission Is nos authorized 10 Ak rates either
absolutely or relatively. and where the
commission has assumed 10 make an or
Ger fixing the rates for the carriage OF
merchandise oy railroads 20 designated
roi0l 60 is the duty Of the court 10 declare
such oricr nau and void.
Fourth The order or tho interstate COM
nerce commission IN the case OF the Mer-
chants Union OF Spokane. vs. The North
ern Pacific Railroad Company ana the
Dnlou Pacific Railroad Company, Is in part
a mere declaration Of ihe guly OF the de-
feodant corporations as defined - the law
ttssif. and IN cart prescrincs the maximum
rates which nav De charged oy t1e rail-
roads for the carriage 90 Spokane Of
freight nor affected al coast and terminal
points by competition % ocean carriers
*Fttth. SAl8 order Is uuI and void. and
as thefe - no valid ar definite order Of
the interstate commerce commission which
can be enforced oy decree ~ this court.
the proceedings should he dismissed
Concnrs With snwser's Conclusions.
7 must concur With the conc}us.ons 81
the master above given and for the rea-
sons which he has assigned. snd for the
further reason that since his report was
Ned Che Supreme court az the United
states. iD ~ case OF the interstate con-
snerea conri ssion vs. railway ror,panv
if- L s fsa-aie has considered thts sub
ftcf with great delhi ration and given an
exhaustive and COMPREHENSIVE decision.
lsavtag no way open 10 avoid the conc.u-
sion aforesaid In the oplUiou ot the
court Mr Justice Brewer saws.
" Oar conclusion. then. IS that congress
has reg conferred upou The commission
she legislative power OF prescribing "a IS.
either maximum or minimum. ~ absolute.
As it aid rot give the express power %
the commission. e did rot intend 20 Sc
cure the same result indirectly hy eu-
towering that tribunal 20 determine what.
Ia reference 10 thc past was reasonable
ard just. whether as maxim minimum
o. absolute. and thea enable it to obtain
from the courts q peremptory order that
fu sra future the railroad COMPANIES
should follow the rates thus determined
- have been In The past reasonable ana
THE first part q the order which au-
fhariEes the railway company 20 make
cotnnodity rates On competitive trsfic 20
terminal points less than their rates on
Ike trRfflc - spokane eut thAt such COM
modify rates must not be sowcr th4a
necessary 70 meet coupe .iticH. uoT - a5-
Piled % articles rot actually subject
thereto. - a mere statement az vghat .tea
law authorizes ana prescrlees. ard is. %
course too Fn1eHnlfs ~ ~ the bass ef a
decree TO enforce obo3fsace: in 50 Tar as
the order Is definite ara specific il IS ia
valid. because the coglrale s4on vas not
authorized 70 prescribe rates
Z am unable % rnt r-orgrs GO avz,,--,-
fnr Jurisdiction - astermins IRE trerr--a- r
questions a. issue. n tho fset fnat Nesn
tie proceedings were cc7l aar~e-E th4
Narthern PAriAc was IN tse c.stefv Of
receivers appointed by thts court q z
should disregard TIRE nraver ~ Q~ss-t-~-
srs . have ere decision ~ tAa s1fe~s.ats
commerce commission enforced al .reat
ths Petition as ~ spNesi 20 gre c1lrt ta
reSatAte the corducf % the receivers Sc
TAR as % FSlatre them - deal w.tz she
merchants a13 basfEeSg r1ra 81 So --
oR tust ar3 equitable terms ms aecHs.ce.
" HefHrr favorable - fNe retitfeer~s ~
eteerNfse Woula rc1 settle tke con treve-sy
tefW~e0 ere people - S~eNane ans fra
FassrcRts. II Is q rgis ter tsa fsfuge q. p .cs
f-Esa fe ttts9nrrs are clleav Interested -
Hes es ael .she3 ana tsc -1Ar-stfs p Az
FRS Seen transferred En- ~e4 cear~arv
e#.ts-eo aa~ as te tee obligations ana
rF-He Pr -He receivers Or ere ~ast aes.A
f- recE,tess 20 thrz rrar Il given ~
tfs- tssar g. -ay cns-.s- e-a.-,-s~
t@st q every ttse af gee case g. mast Re
regarded Es Saving HeTr iuurs-r~.t r--r-
rrr cet as th9t 3scrae ee 4ss--. e-sf IS