The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-06
ANTHRACITE COAL
CASE DECISION
Inter- State Commerce
Commission Won.
THE HEARST SUIT
The Recent Decision of the Circuit
Court Reversed by the Supreme
Court. Justice Brewer Dis
senfed but Delivered
No Opinion.
CIV the Associated Press.)

Washington, April 4.-The case OF the
Interstate Commerce Commission vs.
Baird, commonly known as the Anthra-
cite Coal Case, was decided by the SUI
preme Court of the United States today
in favor of the contentious of the Com
mission, the decision of the United States
Circuit Court for the southern district
of New York being reversed. This Is the
case instituted before the Commission by
, w. r. Hearst, of New York, who al
legged discrimination by the railroad COM
panies which reached the anthracite coal
mines in Pennsylvania. During the hear
ing some of the witnesses refused to pro-
duce certain contracts bearing Upon the
business of the railroad companies and
the coal mines which action was upheld
by Circuit Court of New York. The Uni
ted States Supreme Court held that the
contracts should have been supplied. The
opinion was handed down by Justice Day
After deciding the question of jurisdc-
ton in favor of the complainant. JUS
tice Day in his decision considered the
coal purchase contracts. These contracts
were made with coal companies owned
piIhSlIdlIy OS luG ldIliOdC COUIpdHiCSe anu
fixed the price of anthracite COAL ship
fnents to be made as called for by the
purchasers. While the contracts were
produced for inspection the witnesses re-
fused to permit them to be given in evil
dence.
In passing upon this point Justice Day
said:
THE railroads are all engaged in Inter
State Commerce, and into their affairs
and methods of doing business the Com
mission sought to and is lawfully author
eizd by the commerce act to make inveS-
tigation. The Commission has the right
to know how interstate traffic is con-
Quoted, the relations between the carrier
and its shippers and the rates charged
and obtained. We see no reason why
contracts of this character, which have
direct relation to a large amount OF carry
ing trade, can be withheld from eXamina-
ton as evidence by the Commission"
AS to the Temple Iron Company con-
tracts the court said:
1T is argued that these contracts, if
given in evidence, will tend to show a
pooling of freight in violation of the fifth
section of the commerce act. While this
testimony may not establish such an ar
IdHSCillCul IL Ids III Jul OQIulOu u lCSlIi-
mate bearing uron the question. There
is division of freight among several
railroads whereby agreement or otherwise,
the companies have a common interest in
the source from which it is obtained
Furthermore, we think the testimony CON-
petent as bearing upon the manner in
which transportation rates are fixed, in
view of determining the question of rea-
sonableness of rates into which the Com
mission has right to inquire. To I'M
reasonably hamper them by narrowing
the field of inquiry beyond the require
ments of the due protection of rights of
citizens will be to seriously impair it's
usefulness and prevent realization of
the salutary purposes for which it was
established by Congress-"
Justice Brewer dissented but did not
deliver an opinion