Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1904-04-09
COAL ROADS MUST
SHOW CONTRACTS
o. s. Supreme Court UphOlds Appeal
in Hearst Case.
JUSTICE DAY RENDERS OPINION

Washington, April 5.-The case OF
vs. Baird. commonly known as the
anthracite coal case. was decided by
the supreme court OF the United States
In favor of the contentious of the COM
mission, the decision of the United
States circuit court for the Northern
district of New York being reversed.
This is the case instituted before the
commission by w. r. Hearst, of New
York. who alleged discrimination by
the railroad companies which reached
the anthracite coal mines in Pennsyl-
vania-
During the hearing some Of the wit
nesses refused to produce certain con-
tracts bearing upon the business of
the railroad companies and the coal
mines, which action was upheld by the
circuit court Of New York. The United
States supreme court held that the
contracts should have been supplied.
The opinion was handed down by JUS
tice Day.
In passing upon this point Justice
Day said: 1.-The railroads are all en-
6dSCo ia luIcI duu
their affairs and methods of doing bus
mess the commission sought to and is
lawfully authorized by the commerce
act to make investigation. The COM
mission has the right to know how
interstate traffic is conducted, the rela-
lions between the carriers and it's
shippers and the rates charged and
collected. We see no reason why con-
tracts of this character, which have
direct relation to a large amount of
carrying trade. can be withheld from
examination as evidence by the COM
mission"
He added: cit Is to be remembered
that we are not dealing with the ulti-
mate fact of controversy or deciding
which of the contending claims will
be finally established. This is a ques-
ton of relevancy of proof before body
not authorized to make final judgment
but to investigate and make orders
which may or may not be finally en-
bodied in judgments or DEGREES of court
1t may be that the commission or the
courts will ultimately find that these
contracts do not fix the compensation
received by the carriers, and that, as
claimed. the full rate is paid by these
| purchasing companies, and IL there is
| loss on these contracts it is made III
on other business; but the question
concerns the relevancy of proof and not
| whether ii finally establishes the issue
made one way or the other. The in
quiry of board of the character OF
the interstate commerce commission
should not be too narrowly constrained
by technical rules as to the admissible
| ity of proof"
AS to the Temple Iron Company con
| tracts the court said: cit is argued thai
these contracts. If given in evidence
| will tend to show a pooling of freight
In violation of the fifth section of TIL,
commerce act. While this testimony
may not establish such an arrangement
1t has in our opinion legitimate bear
ing upon the question. There is a divi.
/ sion OF freight among several railroad.
whereby, by agreement or otherwise
the companies have a common interes
In the source from which 1t is obtained
Furthermore, we think the testimony
| competent as bearing upon the manner
in which transportation rates are fixed
in view of determining the question O
reasonableness of rates into which tn,
| commission has a right to inquire"
Justice Brewer dissented, but did no
i da1iyar