New-York tribune., 1903-03-10
ELKINS ILAW. SUSTAINED.
Interstate Commerce Case Decided
bg the Supreme Court.

uy..h,ne.nn March A-The United States Su-
preuae Court to-day rendered its rst opinion In an
tnteratste commerce casa In which the Elkins act
passed at the last session ct Congress. was oeaN
With The case was that ef the Missouri PACING
Railroad Company against the United STATES lh.
volving question OF discrimination on tne paE' U
the railroad company as between places. ~ @ N
brought at the instance OF the Interstate
Commission but without any previous proceedings
on the part Of the commission. The raliroao COM
pany fled q demurrer 20 the bill cnaAenehas I"e
regularity OF the proceeding, but th6 Circuit CoorI
and the Circuit Court OF Appeals Tor the Eight"
C,rc,t held the proceeding to be regular, and de-
cided tho case in favor OF ths contention OF tne
United States These decisions were reversed oS 10
DAYS opinion, which was delivered oy justice
White He said that by tfe terms OF the 0io .~~ ~
under which the case was tried the proceS04as
r,ouId not have been regular, but that under the
EIkins law It would be- The court therefore sent
the case back for q new trial under the hklns ~.
The bill originally was fled in the Circuit Court
for the District of Kansas in 1885, at the request
of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 1he c.0'
was brought In the interest Of the city or "lcn1A'
Kan, the allegation being that h1gher cn7[e [ee
were made for carrying freight over tho Nis7OU'A
Pacific from st. Louis to wichita tnah ioE ca,
ing It over the same line from St. Louis to Omaha'
notwithstanding the distance Is in favor OF the
wichita haul, and the conditions are the SANS
The Circuit Court overruled the demurrer OF tne
railroad company. and the company Appeared Iie
case. .
the fact that before the trial In this case the IN
terstate Commerce Commission had not given
hearing and therefore there had been no nnding OF
fact He held that, under the law controlling In
terstate commerce at the time the suit was decided
in the court below, there no authority 70 orinS
suit as It was brought This condition OF analrs'
however, he said. had been changed by the Elklns
act which became law on February ~ he theh
Quoted the third section Of the Elkns act, grant
ing authority for trial in Of discrimination
on petition, and explicitly authorizing proceedings
at the request of the Interstate Commerce Com
MISSION or otherwise, and proceeded as follows:
Although by the fourth section Of the act con-
nctng sWs Gre ire sc c m e now bending nor
rights which have already accrued but sucn causes
ehforeS f d n se
and modified by the provisions OF TINS act to
cause the new remedies which the statute created
be applicable as far as possible TO penoins Aio
proceedings 6ToTen t6 Of the
act to regulate commerce In the nature OF thss bns
The eanhET roaS ID consny now exacts the rates com
pained of as being discriminatory. ana Wncn 1 it
the e OF neT sne su to eueeton the legality
of such rates by suit In equity orougnn NE the @
sbnk 9RG the aeds Of Justice W b Be
reversing the decree beloW and Ternan1ins eHs @ Ine
ceedings as may be consistent with the act to reg
ulats commerce originally enacted ana supSe-
guenty amendd nd uey by the act Of
Congress approved on February 'S' 1885, neretoiorS
referred to.
Justices Harlan and Brewer united In a dissent
Ing opinion, which was delivered by Justice
Brewer who took the position that the Supreme
Court could not review the decree of the court be-
low unless it be final. whereas this case was
brought up on demurrer. He thought the decree
of the Court of Appeals should be reversed put
with directions to the lower court to dismiss Nhe
hill.