The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-11-21
PORTLAND jOBBERS LOST.
THEIR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
RAILROADS HELD BAD.
They Complained That Cheaper
Rates Were Made From San Frnn-
cisco TO idaho Points Than Were

PORTLAND. Or, Nov. aD.--In the United
states court today Judge Besiinger ren-
aered decision sustaining the demurrer
OF the defendants in the case OF Allen &
Lewis, representing the jobbeFs CT Port
land. agains, the Oregon Railroad Il Navi-
Saton company and the Oregon ShorZ Line
railroad FOR alleged violation Of the long
and short haul clause of the interstate
commerce act Judge Bellinger in his de-
cisian says:
The complaint is that the Short Line and
the southern Pacific have made joint
tar1n for freight between San Francisco
ana the Idaho pc hts, under which the
came rate Is charged as that charged by
fae Joint tariff OF the Short Lire and the
oregon railroad Navigation from Port
iand 10 the came points, and under which
ths short Line receives notably much less
Tor It's haul than II receives on Portland
freight. That the object of this is TO give
10 San Francisco and Its merchants an IN
Que and unreasonable preference over Port
land ana It's merchants, and that the o. r.
q ~ is aiding and abetting this purpose
by entering into the joint traffic arrange
fnent In question with tie Short Line Com
pany
Tne complainant. is proceeding upon the
theory that the action Of the Short Line
company IN entering lnto joint tariff ar
rafiss;aient with the Southern Pacific, by
which II receives smaller rate as Its pso-
portion OF the through haul under thai ar
Tansement than IL receives for its proper
ton of the haul under It's joint tariff agree
ment with the q. K. a. N, has the effect
20 make both joint tariffs discriminate
against Portland, and therefore unlawful
'Ihere Is no complaint that the rate of
the Oregon Railroad a. Navigation Com
pany from Portland TO Huntington Is ex-
eessive or discriminating. and il is alleged
that Of the joint rate this is what that
company receives. Nor is there any COM
paint that the excess above the Oregon
company's rate. charged and received by
the snort Line Company as Its share OF
the joint rate, nor thar the joint rate es-
taoushed Dy the two companies Is unjust
or unreasonable. except as these charges
are related TO the charges made under the
Joint tariff established by the Southern
Pacific and the Oregon Short Line COM
panies. The allegation as to the unreason-
abeness OF the joint rate made by the
Oregon Railroad 81 Navigation Company
and the Short Line Company Is that in
consideration OF the premises'--in consii-
GRAFTON Of the alleged discrimination
against Portland merchants In the two
joint rates. and OF the lower charge for
the longer haul TO Ogden-s,ich rate Is I'M
just and unreasonable and In violation OF
section one of the interstate commerce act.
The case Is therefore one O! alleged un-
lawful discrimination In the rates COM
planned of, and unless there Is such dis
crimipation there Is no ground for relief.
The fact that the Short Line Company
under Its joint tariff arrangement with the
Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company
receives ratably more for its haul than il
receives under its tariff management with
the southern Pacific Company Is not q
matter cognizahle by the court"
l.. II. Cox, counsel for Allen & Lewis,
stated today that he would file an amend
ed bih. which would ooviate most Of the
objections found by the court to the orig
inai bill