The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-05-27
Interstate Commerce Cases.

Washington, May 24.-The United
States supreme court decided two cases
today, holding that the United States
commerce commission has no power to
prescribe rates on railroads which may
control in the future. The cases were
those of the commission against the Gin
cinnati and New Orleans Railway COM
pany and the Florida and Western com
pany.
The decision of the court is construed
to mean that the interstate commerce
commission has power to pass upon rates
before they are put into effect.
In the New Orleans and Texas case.
various roads were concerned and the
case was originally instituted by the
freight bureaus of the Chicago and the
Cincinnati chambers of commerce. The
question involved was whether congress
intended to confer upon the interstate
commission power to fix rates. The opn-
ion 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
judgment in mandamus from the courts
to enforce any such tariff by it pre-
scribed."
Continuing, Justice Brewer said:
IluS tHe CDllluiSSlOH nO IuUcUlOnS TO
perform in respect to matter of rates?
Replying to his own question. he said: /:
"UnquestiOnably it has, and most i'm
portant duties in respect to this matter
1t is charged with the general duty of
inquring as to the management of the
business of railway companies and has
the right to compel full and complete in
formation as to the manner in which such
companies are transacting their business
A nd with, ipfn ofi ic Ia,
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 to one
place against another. but that in all
things that equality. of right, which 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 inquiring
and examination; 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 of the country. If it had
rates. it would have said so in unmis-
taxable terms. In this connection it must
be borne in mind that the commission is
not limited in its inquiry and action as in
cases in which a formal compliant has
been made, but that under section 49,
it may institute inquiry on its own mo-
ton in the same manner and to the same
effect as though complaint had been
made.
"Attention is also called to the fact
that the law grants new power even to
fix maximum or minimum rate, and
the conclusion is drawn that as congress
did not give the express power to the
commission it does not intend to secure
the same result Indirectly by empower
ing 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 mOmentary order that
in the future railway companies should
follow the rates thus determined and
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 G.. s. Wright VS.. the United
States. from the district court for the
western district of Pennsylvania The
case grew out of a competition between
the Panhandle and the Baltimore and
Ohio roads for the beer carrying business
] of f. III. Bruening, wholesale beer
dealer of Pittsburg The rates charged