The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-03-10
RAILROAD NEWS.
L. S. Supreme Court Hands
Down Important Decision.
New EIkinS Law Has Bearing on
the Case.
BEFORE AND AFTER.
New Law Made a Difference in
the Decision.
Case Concerns Freight Charges
to Wichita Shippers.

Washington, March 1O-The United
States supreme court yesterday render
ed its first opinion in an Interstate COM
merce case in which the Elkins act,
passed at the last session of congress,
was dealt with. The case was that of
the Missouri Pacific Railroad company
VS.. the United States, involving a CUES
ton of discrimination on the part of the
railroad company as between places. 1t
was brought at the instance of the in
terstate commerce commission, but
without any previous proceedings on the
part of the commission. The railroad
company filed a demurrer to the bill
challenging the regularity of the pro-
ceedings, but the circuit court and cir
cult court of appeals for the Eighth cir
cult held the proceedings to be regular
and decided the case in favor of the
contention of the United States These
decisions were reversed by today's opin-
ion, which was delivered by Justice
White. He said that by the terms of the
OLD law under which the case was tried,
the proceeding would not have been
regular. but that under the EIkius law
1t would be. The court therefore re-
Versed and sent the case back for a new
trial under the EllSins act.
The bill originally was filed in the
circuit court for the district OF Kansas
IN 1893, at the request of the Interstate
commerce commission. The case was
brought in the interest of the city OF
wichita, kas., the allegation being
that higher charges We're made for car
Eylng freight over the Missouri Pacific
from st. Louis to Wichita than We're
made for carrying it over the same line
IrOm ST. Louis to Omaha, Neb., the dis
tance being in favor of Wichita and
the conditions are the same. The cir
cunt court overruled the demurrer OF the
rallroad company and the company ap-
pealed the case to the supreme court
In MS opinion, Justice White called
attention to the fact that prior to the
trial IN this case the interstate com
merce commission had not given a
hearing in the case, and that therefore,
there had been no finding of fact. He
held that under the law controlling in
terstate commerce at the time the suit
was decided in the court below, there
was no authority to bring suit as 1t
was brought This condition of affairs
however, had been changed by the FL
kins act which became a law Febru-
airy Is, last. He then quoted the third
section of the Elkins act governing
authority for trial in cases of discrim-
nation on petition, and explicitly au-
thOrizing proceedings at the request of
the interstate commerce commission or
otherwise, and proceed as follows.
Although by the fourth section Of
the act conflicting laws are repealed
feet causes now pending nor rights
which have already accrued. but such
causes shall be prosecuted to a con
clusion, and such rights enforced in a
manner heretofore provided by law
and as modified by the provisions of
this act we think the purpose of the
/ latter provision was to cause the new
remedies which the status created to
+ be applied as far as possible to pend
! ing and undetermined proceedings
( brought prior to the passage of the act
/ to enforce the provisions of the act to
( regulate commerce.
I'm the nature of things it can not be as
Certalned from the record whether the rail
road company now eXacts the rates COM
planned of as being discriminatory and
which it was the purpose of the suit to
/ to question the legality of such rates by
q suit in equity, brought like the one now
! here, clearly exists.
Under these conditions we think the ends
/ of justice will be observed by reversing the
! DEGREES below and remanding the cause &c
the circuit court for such further proceed
ingS q s may be consistent with the act tC
and shall amend. especially with reference
/ to the powers conferred and duties i'm
POSED by the act of congress approved Feb
/ ruary 10. 1903 heretofore read Justices
Harlan and Brewer united in opposition
which was delivered by Justice Brewer
/ who took the position that the supreme
court could not review the decree of the
I court below unless it be final. the case
( was brought upon a demurrer. He thought
I be reversed but with directions to the
I lower court dismiss the bill.