The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-06-16
Supreme Tribunal Decides Against
Attorney General Crow in Fa-
vor of the Railroads.
NOT IN ITS JURISDICTION.
Judge Burgess Declares Question
of Reconsignment Charges Is a
Private Matter for Rail
way Commission.
REPUBLIC SPECIAL.

REPUBLIC SPECIAL.
Jefferson City, Mo-. June 15-The Missouri
Supreme Court to-day. in an opinion by
Judge Gavon D. Burgess, quashed the pro-
ceedinS instituted by Attorney General
Crow to Gust thirteen different railroad
companies from doing business in Missouri
because reconsignment charge of 3 car
had been put on all grain cars handled
second time by the railroads.
Up TO July rs, 1902, the Attorney General
alleges that no reconsgnment charge had
been made. but that an average switching
charge of s. a car ana a demurrage charge
for cars held on the hold track beyond
specified time had been made. The initial
carrier after the above date charged s.
car for handling over their own tracks in
addition to the switching charge over the
connecting lines.
The Attorney General also alleges that the
charge made by the Santa Fe. Missouri Pa
ciiic, Burlington. Rock Island, and other
roads for reconsignment is Illegal in that 1t
is in restraint of trade and Injuries Kansas
City and st. Louis. and especially the grain
handlers, commission men and elevator
owners. He also sets forth combination of
railroads TO collect this charge from the
shippers is Illegal ana that the system of
rebating the charge to shippers over their
own lines diverts trade from Kansas City
and st. Louis
PRIVATE MATTER.
The court holds that the Attorney General
should not have brought the matter up in
the Supreme Court, as the original proceed
ing by way of quo warranto could only be
exercised when public questions are in
vDlypi The hnf the of
reconsignment charges is a private matter
entirely, and says that complaint should
have been made to the Railway Commits
sioners for adjustment. The court holds
that in the case against the Santa Fe there
must be an interstate commerce question,
but that in such cases the State court can
not GUST
The Kansas City cases were against the
Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe. Missouri
Chicago. Rock Island and Pacific and Chi
cage, Burlington and Quincy railroads. The
st. Louis cases were against the Missouri
Pacific; st. Louis. Iron Mountain and South
ern; St. Louis and San Francisco; Wabash;
Chicago and Alton; Missouri, Kansas and
Texas; ST. Louis and Southwestern; Chi
caso, Burlington and Quincy. and the st.
Louis. Kansas City and Colorado Railroad
The St. Louis cases did not involve any
interstate commerce question. All cases
were decided by the decision in the Santa
Fe cases.
COURTS OPINION.
In the Santa Fe case the court says:
THE plaintiff ought not to have or main
tain its aforesaid action. because it ap-
pears upon the face Of the said information
that the object sought Hereunder is the
vindication of purely private rights, and the
redress Of private grievances in which the
public has no interest and for which there
is full and adequate remedy both at law
| and in equity, available to each and all of
the parties interested therein, and an orig
| inal proceeding by information in the nature
of quo warranto, is not a proper remedy
therefor. and this court has no jurisdiction
over said matters in this proceeding.
I'VE are unable to see wherein the public
has any interest in the reconsignment
charge. which is paid solely by certain
grain dealers and railroads, whose Western
| terminals are at Kansas City, for an addi-
tional service not covered by the freight
| into that city, and which they have the
right to charge. provided it be nothing more
| than what is reasonable for the services
| rendered.