New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-05
COAL RAILROADS LOSE.
q GOVERNMENT VICTORY.
Supreme Court Decides That Roads
Must Produce Contracts.
rrnoM ZEE rrrrr-Sr nrnr,n-1

washington. April 4.-The decision handed
6ov-n bv the United States Supreme Court to-
DAY upholding the contentious OF the Interstate
commerce Commission in its case against Baird
commonly called the Anthracite Coal case. is
regarded by competent legal authorities here as
m important and comprehensive victory for the
administration. 1t is pointed out that II not only
demonstrates the thoroughness with which the
case was prepared. but indicates well the
Governments consistency and earnestness OF
purpose in insisting that the highest court in the
United States determine the power vested in
the Interstate Commerce Commission under the
operation OF the Interstate Commerce law.
From the beginning of the investigation by the
Interstate Commerce Commission the President
and the Attorney General hsve manifested the
keenest interest in fits progress. Both fully re-
allied its Importance in It's bearing on the proper
enforcement Of the law. and both are highly
gratihed that. by the decision OF the United
States Supreme Court. the government will
hereafter he enabled TO throw the searchlight OF
publicity the hidden operations OF corpora
tons engaged IN questionable illegal trans
actions. After MIR. Hearst. exercising the
right Of any citizen OF New-York laid his
complaint against the coal carrying roads be-
fore the Interstate Commerce Commission his
connection with the case ceased and that Of
the government began. Since that time every
proper leg6l euOrt has bee1 MADE on the art
q, the Department Of Justice and the commits
sion 70 facilitate the progress Of the suit. with
rasui; gratifying to all observers OF ;he law OF
the land.
TIE suit was primarily brought by the Inter
state Commerce Commission before Judge La
Comhe. OF the United States Circuit Court for
the Southern District OF New-Tork. because in
the investigation Of the Interstate Commerce
Commission representatives Of the railroad COM
panies had refused to produce certain contracts
end answer pertinent questions. The Circuit
Court held that these witnesses could not be
compelled 10 supply this evidence. and the gov
eminent promptly appealed 10 the United States
Supreme Court That the Department Of Jus
tie believed it TO be case Of great Importance
was indicated by the designa ton by Attorney
General Knox OF Assistant Attorney General
Day and John G. Carlisle TO argue the appeal.
Judge Days thorough familiarity with the anti
trust end similar prosecutions Of this kind and
sK-Secretary Csrlisles acknov lodged legal sbil-
ity assured 10 the government able counsel in
sts contention before the highest court.
Should The evidence which the defendants will
now, under the decision. be compelled TO give
show that there have been any violations Of the
Sherman Antitrust law I'm the operations of
the coal carrying roads. they will promptly he
reported TO the Department Of Justice. The At
torney General viii then direct that thorough
examination OF the evidence be made with A
view to instituting prosecutions II in his judg-
r1ent such action is warranted by the facts sub
nitted
Another sweeping effect Of the decision is to
strengthen the Bureau of Corporations Of the
Department Of Commerce and Labor in its in
vestigstions Questions regarded by this bureau
IS relevant 70 the inquiry undertaken must be
answered. the power OF the courts may be in
voied TO compel replies.
JUSTICE DAYS OPINION.
In handing down the opinion OF the court JUS.
tce Day said that the case had grown out OF a
complaint filed in 1902 by William r. Hearst
with the Interstate Commerce Commission
against the Philadelphia and Reading the
Lehigh Valley. the Delaware. Lacka-
wanna and Western. the Central OF New
Jersey and other railroad companies. and that
81 came 70 this court Oh appeal from an order
made in the Circuit Court OF the United States
Tor the Southern District Of New-York in the
matter OF the petition Of the commission for
orders requiring the testimony Of witnesses and
TIE production of certain books and papers in
pursuance Of the requirements OF the Interstate
Commerce law.
The first point decided was that Of jurisdic-
ton, which the court ruled that It had under the
law Of 1903 regulating interstate commerce,
and therefore refused 10 entertain the motion
- dismiss made By the railroad companies. The
court also held as irrelevant and inapplicable
The point made in behalf OF the railroad com
Tanies that Mr. Hearst, the complainant, had
sustained no damage, saying that under the
mandatory provision OF the law the commission
could not DO otherwise than investigate Coming
80 the specific items OF testimony which the Cir
c,lit Court in dismissing the petition considered
irrelevant, the court FIRST considered the coal
purchase contracts. These contracts were made
wiki coal companies owned principally by the
railroad companies and fixed the price OF an
thlacite. shipments TO be made as called for by
the purchasers. While the contracts were pro-
cuoed for inspection. the witnesses refused to
permit them to be given in evidence. In passing
on this point Justice Day said:
The railroads are all engaged in interstate con-
inei ce. and into their affairs and methods Of dorg
business the commission sought 10 and Is law
snvse.5rl.-Tor -,,a' ,e,-,-esi..- - - ~s,f. >,
tnNeetAed d1OI. me coilifisslon mas lle flSht 10
Know how Interstate traffic Is conducted, the
tle rates charged ana collected. We see no reason
Why contracts OF this character. which have direct
sesuon 10 n large amount OF carrying trade, can
oe withheld from examination as evidence by the
commission.
WITH the ultimate Tact OF contrc versy deciding
Nhlch of The contendins claims Will ne finally es
before body not authorized TO make nnal 1udg-
;neft but to investigate and make orders which
;nsy may not be .nally embodied in judgments
sson or the courts viii uitirnatev 1ind thai fle =
contracts 90 ax the compensation received by
me carriers, and that. claimed. tho ful.
loss on these c5ntrsSts il IS ma ie ip on oiSeT
business; but the question concerns the relevancy
fhe issue made way or the other. The inqurg-
81 board OF the character OF the Interstate Com
nlcrce ComTnission should not be too narrowly
coIstrsincd by technical rules as 10 the admiss-
b!ty or proof.
AS 20 the TeTnple Iron Company contracts the