The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-12-02
Al.
Supreme
decision.
Cannot Excuse Rate
in by RaiIroad-Text of
in the Case of Hilton
bmpany Against the At
st Line Railroad.
and ObServer.)

No0~AhoN NAO LII NOdoI
Blroad in which the plaintiff
charges that the railroad dis
ties against it in the matter OF
hn opinion was handed down in
fpreme court last week sustaining
~bntention of the plaintiff and de-
hg that the lumber company had
ght to have it's logs carried to its
at the same rate as others without
ling itsef to ship it's lumber by the
Fendant, Or indeed to ship it at all"
THE opinion was written by Chief
Justice Clark. Justices Conner and
Walker concurrfng. The text of the
4 opinion follows:
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAP
OLINA; August term, 1904. ti7a
New Hanover, Hilton Lumber Com
pany, appellant, VS. Atlantic Coast
tine Railroad Company.
CLARK. C. j. The giSf of this action
Is for discrimination EDy the defendant
I'M charging n plaintiff a higher rate
on logs to the defendants mill in Will
m1ngton than was charged others for
like services, and to recover the over
charges which had been paid under
protest. The point presented is not
tnat the rate, $3.50 per thousand feet
-bn carload lots charged the plaintiff, is
per Sc unreasonable, but thu the rrate
charged others for the same service for
the same distance was 81. 10 and this is
a serious discrimination, which if con
tinued will result in the crippling of the
plaintiffs mill and the building I'D of
the other mills which are in competition
with the plaintiff. for it has in five
months amounted to So, 300 for the re-
coverey Of which this action is brought
The court charged the jury: IF YOU
find that the rate of $2.10 per thousand
feet was charged and collected by the
defendant upon logs shipped over any
part OF its railroad to a mill or mills at
(which dogs were manufactured into
lumber n the lumber itself reshipped
over the railroad of the defendant. OF
amy part of it, and that the reduced
rate of S2.10 per thousand feet was Civ
en- to such mill i'm consideration of such
fact that they would ship the lumber
manufactured out of said logs over the
lime of said road, which said agreement
was open to all mills that wished to &C
cept 1t, then it would not be an unjust
or an illegal discrimination to charga
$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
a common carrier has a right to charge
one person a lower rate of freight
than another for shipping the same
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 it's
managers think will make equality as
to the treasury of the company, it Is
5000 a. Loss N Jfcn,ip,inotinD pa~oinSf
the plaintiff. 1t is charged $3.50 while
others are charged $40 for the same
service. It is true If the plaintiff
should choose to agree to ship manufac-
tured lumber out of Wilmington over
the defendants line, it could get the
same reduction of rate on its logs into
Wilmington. On those conditions il
could save itself from being discrim;-
mated against. But Suppo the plain
az should wish to sell its lumber al
Wilmington or can ship it at 4 lower
F-lte by sea, or even by a competing
rtflroad line out of Wilmington, has il
i I the right to do so?
Should it see fit to exercise that right
las the common carrier the power Il
place q penalty of 19 per e n higher
,lstte on the Plaintiff and to charge i
"a 80 for bringing it's logs to Whining
ton when it charged others S2.10 TO
Cyactly the same service?
The principle involved is a vital on
to the pubic at large. for upon this al
legged right to discriminate by comma
carriers Exercised either openly or Sc
cretlv by rSbates), nearly all trusts AM
especially the Standard Oil Company
have been built UP to their present dis
quieting and menacing predomfnance
as has been fully shown by the mves
tigation of the Industrial Commission
and the Interstate Commerce Commits
~. ~ no-- n
gTeSS-
Under the same idea that the ties
Was the fact that the railroad compan'
would not lose by the favor Cexten1e
in the present case by charging certal
shippers $40 while charging the plain
tiff 50 .5O). another railroad compau
charged the STANDARD Oil Company 10t
per barrel while charging it's competi
tors 35c. per barred. and paying 25c o
the 80 thus collected to the Standar
OH Company. Handy vs.. Railroad,
Fed. Rep. 6S9. The railroad comDan
in that instance must have found it
offset, its profit, somewhere Or it woul
not have made that arrangement Blu
what became of the competitors of tn
STANDARD Oil Company?
Here. the railroad company wi
doubtless make UP out of its force
monopoly of shipping out of Whining
ton the lumber to be manufactured OF
of all h logs hauled in by it. the 4t
which is deducted in V of those VIII
will ii V it that monopoly. But wh
should it discriminate by rates upO
logs. which when turned into lumbe
are sold in Wilmington, or shipped b
sea, or shipped by a competing rorut'
ut costs no more to bring in the plair
tiff's logs than the logs for those who:
hauling only S2.10 was changed III
shipment Of logs TO Wilmington Is OF
transaction; the shipment of lumber o.
is another. The defendant cann
charge the plaintiff higher on los
because it will not agree to ship j
lumber by the defendants line. 1t
no answer to say that II the plainti
will come into the defendants terms
will get The same discount The defent
amt might as we'll say. II you VIII carr
your logs to a saw mill in which II
vazlroad company Is a large wner ye