The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-03
GRIGGs, REFUSAL TO PROSECUTE.

The opinion recently given by Attorney
General Griggs on the application of GER
tain Chicago shippers, that he prosecute
for conspiracy under the Sherman anti
trust law certain railroad corporations
operating north of the Ohio and Potomac
rivers and east of the Mississippi, seems
on its face to be very sensible and we'll
reasoned document
The shippers in this case complained
that certain changes made by the rail-
roads in existing freight classifcations
were certain to result in the creation Of
unreasonable charges under the law and
in unjust discrimination against small
and in favor of large shippers and
against certain localities in favor Of
others, They appealed to the interstate
commerce commission, and during the
railroads affected that they should post
pone the operation of the proposed
changes. This the railroads refused to
agree to. The shippers thereupon asked
the interstate commerce commission to
certify the facts to the attorney gen
eral, with a view to the prosecution of
the railroads under the antitrust law
This law, 1t will be remembered, has
been found effective in putting an end
to combinations among railroads which
are in restraint of trade. A recent de-
cision of the federal supreme court
shows also that the antitrust law is eff
fective in preventing like combinations
or conspiracies, when properly prose-
cuted. on the part of other corporations
The shippers, apparently impressed with
the decision given so recently by the SUI
preme court in the case of the Addison
Steel company, proceeded to secure a
! legal remedy for complaints which had
not been yet passed upon by the inter-
. state commerce commission, the tribunal
which the law invests in the first instance
with jurisdiction over them. The attor-
ney general very plainly declares that
the shippers application to have him
prosecute is absurd.
This expression will be considered q
bit strong; but in the nature of the ap-
plication, it seems fully warranted. If
the shippers had waited for the adjudi-
cation of the commission on the questions
raised, it might have become the duty of
the attorney general under the law to
proceed with the prosecution they sought
although this appears somewhat in doubt
considering the undisputed facts brought
out before tie commission and certified
to the attorney general. The complaint
was one of unjust discrimination and un-
reasonable charges That question still
remains undetermined, owing to the ac-
ton of the shippers in passing their com
plant over the heads of the interstate
commerce commission.
The ground, however, on which Attor-
ney General Griggs bases his opinion
and his characterization OF the applica-
ton as absurd is that the railroads In
question acted not only conformity in
the changes that they made in the former
classification. but they also acted sepa-
rately and independently. Each of the
roads interested ratified the new classi-
fication suggested by the joint commit
tee, thereby. according to Mr.. Griggs,
negativing the assumption OF the ship
pers that there was such conspiracy as
would be within the purview of the anti
trust law
The shippers have, of course, still their
remedy Of submitting the offensive sched-
ules Of rates to the commission, and of
compelling the roads. through that body.
to alter their classification If the charge
of unreasonableness or discrimination is
SUSTAINED. For all practical purposes