The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-04-05
United States Tribunal Rules
They Must Show Contracts to
Commerce Commission.
MAY BE EVIDENCE OF POOL.
Justice Day Declares That to
Limit Inquiry in Hearst Suit on
Technical Grounds Would
BE TO Impair Commits
sion'S Usefulness.

Washington. April 1.-THE case f the
Interstate Commission vs..
Baird. commonly known as the anthracite
coal case. was decided by the Supreme
Cour; Of the United States ,o-iay in favor
Of the contentious OF the commission cen
corning the submission of proof. the Ge-
cisicn OF the United States 'ircuit C"crt
for the Southern District Of NaS Imli
being reversed.
THIS is the case instituted befcr, the
commission by w. r. Hearst q New
York. who alleged discrinina i'm ny t:e
ra'.roId companies which reacral the an
t~l,raoite coal mines in Pennsylvania.
Iiling the hearing some o. the wit
ness; refused TO produce certain Contracts
bea 'lG on the businesses of the IailrCad
companies and the coal mines. which ac.
tia: WAS upheld by the CirucIt Court of
NV York. The United states Supreme
Court Eel@ that the contracts should nave
bsei supplied. The opinion Wa handed
dow. b." Justice Day.
DAYS OPINION.
In passing upon the point at issue jus
tice Day said:
The railroads are all engaged in interstate
commerce and into their affairs and methods of
S''it 'A-AA'sT Aif M 10 lin ~
lawfully Authorized hS the commerce, act to
ed, the relations between the carrier ard its
sllippt RS and the rates charged and collected.
acter. which have direct relation to a iaTg.
amount Of carrying trade. can lie withheld from
II is 10 be- remembered that we are not deal
Ing with the ultimate fact Of CONTROVERSY or
he finaily established. This il. a question Of
rei-sar"H Of proof before a body not authorized
20 MAJ MAI I0Fpa iny 10 at GOD
MAXI orders which may or may not he finally
e. en'n9aied IN JIdStmen,s or DEGREES Of court:
will ultimately find that the contracts do no,
ax the compensation received by the carriers
ana that as claimed the full rate IL paid by.
these purchasing compaI.ies. and II there lie a
toss On thee contracts it is made up on other
OF proof and not whether 1t finally establishes
'ne ,ssne made one way or the other.
fas IN, isters;ate Gotnme.ce Commission should not
as 10 III" admissihility of proof.
POOLING OF INTERESTS.
As to the Temple Iron Company. con-
tracts the court said:
1t is argued that these contracts. II given
in evidence. Will tend to show a pooling Of
freight IN violation Of the fifth section Of the
establish such an arrangement. It has. in our
opinion; a legitimate bearing upon the uues-
several rsiiroads. % pfs1SsSg q bv fa asfaema aan0n @r
otherwise. the companies have n common inter
est IN IA" source from which II is obtained,
Furthermore. We think the testimony compe-
tent as bearing on the manner in which trans
portation rates are fixed In view TO deternin-
ing the. question Of reasOnableness Of rates in.
TO which the commission has a right to INQUIRE
To unrea sonably hamper the commission by
narrowing the field Of inquiry beyond the re-
ouirements Of the due protection OF rights az
citizens VIII he to seriously impair its use
fniness and prevent A realization OF the
salutaIy purposes for which II was established
by Congress.
Justice Brewer dissented but did not de-
liver an opinion.