The Redwood gazette., 1904-09-28


MA a civil proceeding against the said
Federal Salt company for maintaining q
combinat0n and monopoly IN restraint Of
interstate trade and commerce.
g. Interstate Commerce Commissions
! vs. Baird and Others.-This proceeding
4 grew out Of an investigation which the.
| interstate commerce commission was
| making into the business and methods
Of the so-calIed coai-carrying railroads.
namely: The Philadelphia &c Reading
railway company: Lehigh Valley rail-
Western railroad company: Central Rail-
I road Company Of New jersey New York,
SusQuehanna e Western railroad COM
4 pany; Erie railroad company; New York
! Delaware & Hudson company: Penn
4 sylvania railroad company, and Balti-
i vestigation having been interrupted by
the refusal Of certain officers Of the rail-
road companies to give testimony and
/ produce books and papers which the COM
mission considered germane and material
to the inquiry petition was filed, under
the direction OF the attorney general, in
| the United States circuit court for the
to section II Of the act tp regulate COM
merce, for the purpose OF compelling the
recalcitrant witnesses to give the testi-
TDony and produce the books and papers
| In question.
"a Interstate Commerce Commission
/ vs.. Nashville, Chattanooga & st. Louis
| Railway Company ct al-This was pc
| tition filed by the Interstate Commerce
/ Commission In the circuit court OF the
| United States for the southern district OF.
| Florida, under section JIG Of the act to-
regulate commerce., to restrain the de-
| fendant railroads from charging rates on
shipments between certain points IN
Florida, Tennessee and Missouri, which
the commission allege to be unlawful in
| the following respects: (a) Excessive
| and unreasonable; (b) discriminating; and
| Sc) higher for short hauls than for long
rs. Hav and straw classincation case.
| interstate Commerce Commission vs.
/ The Lake Shore e Michigan Southern
/ In equity In the United States circuit
court for the northern district Of Ohio,
4 brought by the Interstate Commerce
Commission, under the direction OF the
| attorney general, pursuant to the provi-
sions OF the act to regulate commerce.
4 Its object is TO prevent and restrain the
/ the commission alleges to be an unjust
classification OF hay and straw and un-
just and unreasonable charges for their
| transportation from the Mississippi river
to the Atlantic seaboard.
30. Cotton Traffic Pool Cases. Omitted
States VS.. Western & Atlantic Railway
Company Ell al, In the United States dis
Georgia, and United States VS. Illinois
4 Central Railroad Company ct al, In the
United States district court for the west
ern district Of essee.)-These are
prosecutions IN which It Is charged that
the defendant railroads entered into q
! combination to control the routing OF
i Immediately after the institution Of the
proceedings in these cases the alleged
combination dissolved, and shippers We're
left free to route their shipments as they
chose.
"There have been a number Of proceed
ings of a minor character brought under
the acts to regulate commerce, Tor sex-
ample proceedings to compel Interstate
carriers to make annual reports to the
Interstate Commerce Commission, and
the like; but 1T Is thought that it IS not
the desire Of the house to have e detailed
In his Supplemental report of Feb. 10,
| 1904. the attorney general states:
Il inadvertently omitted from my re-
/ port of Jan. 13, 1904, the case of the IN
tcrstate Commerce Commission vs.. The
Chesapeake e Ohio and New York. New
Haven & Hartford railroad companies
i pending in the United States circuit court
for the western district Of Virginia at
Il Lynchburg. This was petition in equity,
filed July 13, 1908. for the purpose Of en-
joining the defendant companies from
violating the act to regulate commerce,
| which prohibits interstate carriers from
making unjust determinations or giving
undue preference in rates.
The government contended that the law
/ was being violated in that q coal COM
\ pany controlled by the Chesapeake q
i Ohio company sold coal to the New YORK,
New Haven & Hartford company for less
than the cost of mining plus the peb-
4 lished tariff of the Chesapeake a Ohio
L
ton, and that this amounted to the
Chesapeake & Ohio transporting the coal
in question at less than its published
rates.
Democrats Did Nothing.
Some Of the most important Of these
Il cases have already been decided in favor
of the contention Of the government by
the supreme court of the United States.
Compare the apathy which prevailed dur
ing C1eveland's s last administration, in the
matter of protecting the American people
against the inroads of combinations in
restraint of trade, with the energy that
has prevatesd s II tna5 9eaF qalng noaggvet ehe
both in the legislative and executive de-
partments Of the government. The he-
publican party has in this matter as IN
Il everything else that concerns the welfare
of the American people, been a party not
i Of promises but of action while the DEM
i Ocratic party has confined ttself to mere
i platform anathemas and platform Lulml-
4 nations Neither the record, the prom
ises. nor the candidate of the Democratic
/ party, If duly scanned and weighed give
i any valid ground for anticipating any
| substantial legislative or administrative
j relief against the trust evil through that
/ source The only affirmative remedy the
Il party suggests would not reach the worst
features Of the evil and would be utterly
| destructive to our Industrial life, and
would put labor on the struggling and
hard level Of labor in the Old World
j The philippines.
The Democratic party IS still shouting
4 Imperialism, still finding fault with our
ACQUISITION Of the Philippine islands, and
with our government Of the same; # i'm
perialism consists in the fact that the
Filipinos have not yet secured all the
political rights that are. given to the peo-
pie Of the organized territories Of the
United States-and this seems to be the
sense IN which the Democracy use the
Iterm-then worse form Of imperialism
prevails in some of the southern states
than anywhere else under our flag.
wherever" says the Democratic plat
form, there may exist people incapable
i Of being governed under American laws,
! IN consOnance with the American Consti-
II tuition, the territory Of that people ought
4 not to be a part Of the American do
i minfon" There are some states in this
country where a majority of the people
i are deemed by the Democracy to be in
4 this condition, and are so treated. BY
this Democratic token and rule these
/ states fought not to be a part of the
American domain. @, Democracy
Judge not that ye be not Judged
we have never made territorial ac-
QUESTION, in all our history as a nation,