Milford chronicle., 1904-04-08
COAL ROADS MUST
SHOW CONTRACTS
Q. S. Supreme Court UphOlds Appeal
in Hearst Case
JUSTICE DAY RENDERS OPINION

JOO4ASG OA AdNgIlEsD VI 4N4ON
Washington, Apr, THE case of
the Interstate Commerce Commission
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 Pcnnsyl- |
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: THE railroads are all en-
gagged in interstate commerce, and into
their affairs and methods of doing bus
! mess the commission sought to and is
I lawfully authorized by the commerce
| act to make investigation. The COM
mission has the right to know how
interstate traffic is conducted, the rela-
/ tions between the carrierst and its
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: 1T is to be remembered
that we are not dealing with the ultl-
! 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.
It 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 II there Is
a loss on these contracts it is made VI
| on other business; but the question
concerns the relevancy Of proof and moi
whether it finally establishes the ISSUE
made one way or the other The in
ouiry of a board of the character o.
the interstate commerce commission
should not be too narrowly constrained
> by technical rules as to the admissibll
ity of proof"
: AS to the Temple Iron Company con
D, tracts the court said: 1T is argued ina
}, these contracts. if given in evidence
y will tend to show pooling Of trelgh
r in violation of the fifth section OF IN
: commerce act While this testimoh'
NAV not establish such an arrangement
r if has in our opinion legitimate bear
e ing upon the question. There is dlvi
d sion of freight among several rallroaa
whereby. by agreement or otherwise
d the companies have common interes
L in the source from which it is obtained
e Furthermore, we think the tesumon
|. competent as bearing upon the manne
in which Transportation rates are hxe(
in view Of determining the question {
v reasonableness of rates into which IN
= commission has right to inquire.
, Justice Brewer dissented, but did nc
n deliver an OPINION.