The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-11-27

In the case of the Hilton Lumber
Company AGAINST the Atlantic Coast
Line Railroad in which the plaintiff
company charges that the railroad dis
eliminates against it in the matter of
rates, an opinion was handed down in
the Supreme Court last week sustain
| ing the contention of the plaintiff and
declaring that the lumber company
"had a right to have its logs carried to
its mill at the same rate as others
without binding itself to ship its lum-
Der by the defendant, or indeed to ship
1t at ALL
The opinion was written by Chief
Justice Clark, Justices Connor. and
Walker concurring. The text of the
opinion follows:
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAR
OLlNA: August term, 1904. .112,
New Hanover. Hilton Lumber Co.,
appellant--v-Atlant Coast Line
Railroad Co.
Rountree & Carr for appellant: jun
ius Davis for appellee. -.
! CLARK G. j. The gst of this ac-
| tion is for discrimination by the de-
| fendant in charging the plaintiff
| mill in Wilmington than was charged
| others for like service, and to recov-
| er the over-charges which had been
paid under protest. The point pre-
sented is not that the rate, $3.50 per
thousand feet in car load lots charged
the plaintiff, Is per Sc unreasonable,
but that the rate charged others for
the same service for the same dis
tance was $40 ana that this is
serious discrimination which II con-
tinued viii result in the Gripping or
the plaintiffs mill and the building
up of the other mills which are in
competition With the plaintiff, for 1t
has in five months amounted to $4,000
for the recovery of which this action
is brought.
The court charged the jury: If you
find that the rate of $2..10 per thous-
and feet was charged and collected
by the defendant upon logs shipped
over any part of it's railroad to a mill
or mills at which logs were manufac-
tured into lumber and the lumber it
self reshipped over the railroad of
the defendant, or any part OF it, and
| that the reduced rate of $2.10 per
| thousand feet was given to such mill
in consideration of such fact that
they would ship the lumber manufac-
tured out of said logs over the line
| of the defendants road, which said
wished TO accept it, then it would
not be an unjust or an illegal discrim-
ination to charge $3.50 per thousand
feet, which it is not contested is a
reasonable rate to mills which did
not ship their manufactured lumber
over the line of the defendant road"
The proposition herein stated is that
q common carrier has right to charge
one person a lower rate of freight
oh m
quantity, the same distance, under the
same conditions, provided the shipper
gives the company a consideration
(Shipping the manufactured lumber
subsequently over it's line), which its
managers think will make equality as
to the treasury of the company, it
is none the less a discrimination
against the plaintiff. 1t is charged
$3.50 while others are charged $2.10
for the same service. 1t is true if
the plaintiff should chose to agree to
ship it's manufactured lumber out of
Wilmington over the defendants line
it could get the same reduction of
rate on it's logs into Wilmington. On
those conditions it could save itself
from being Disseminated against. But
suppose the plaintiff should wish to
sell its lumber in Wilmington, or can
ship it at lower rate by sea, or
even by a competing railroad line out
of Wilmington, has it not the right
to do so?
Should it see fit to exercise that
right, has the common carrier the
power to place penalty of a 19 per
cent. higher rate on the plaintiff and
to charge it $3.50 for bringing it's
logs to Wilmington when it charged
others $2.1O for exactly the same SER
vice?
The principle involved is a vital
one to the public at large, for upon
this alleged right to discriminate by
common carriers Exercised either
openly or secretly by rebates), nearly
all trusts, and especially the Standard
Oil Co... have been built up to their
present disquieting and menacing
predominance, as has been fully
shown by the investigation and re-
port of the Industrial Commission
and the Interstate Commerce Com
mission, both appointed by acts of
Congress.
Under the same idea that the test
was the fact that the railroad company
would not lose by the favor (extend-
ed in the present case by charging
certain shippers $2.10 while charg-
ing the plaintiff $250), another rail-
road charged the Standard Oil Com
pany 10c. per barrel while charging
its competitors 35c per barrel. and
paying 25c of the 35c thus collected
to the Standard Oil Company. Handy
V. Railroad, 81 Fed. Rep. $50. The
railroad company in that instance
must have found it's offset, its profit,
somewhere or it would not have made
that arrangement. But what became
of the competitors of the Standard
Oil Company?
Here, the railroad company will
doubtless make up out of its forced
monopoly of shipping out of Whining
J ton the lumber TO be manufactured