The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-11
COMMISSION LOST OUT
DECISION or LOWER COURT WAS
 SUSTAINED.
Supreme Tribunal Ruled that Inter- state Commerce Commission Gould Not Compel Board to IncOr-
 porate Particulars in
Report.

p0rate Particulars In
 Report.
 Washington, April 10.--In an opinion by Justice McKenna, the supreme court of the United States today affirmed the decision of the United States cir- cult court for the Northern District of Ohio in the case of the Interstate Com merce Commission against the Lake Shore Railroad Company.
 The suit was brought by the com mission to compel the railroad com pany to comply with the order of the commission to incorporate certain par ticulars in its report. The commission was overruied by the courts decis- ion.
 The particular involved was issued Jan. 8, 1903. The Lake Shore com pany failed in its report made in re- sponse to the order to include certain data called for, including tonnage, ton mileage, earnings and receipts per ton per mile on grain, hay. cotton, live stock. dressed meats, anthracite coal, and lumber carried in car load lots.
 The commission filed a petition for a mandamus to compel response to the petition. alleging that the inforna- tion requested is necessary to enable the commission to properly carry on the business for which it was created.
  cult court on the ground that 1t was without original Jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Today's opinion sustains that action.
 Altogether the contention that there is no question as to the commission power to request such reports and en- force obedience to its orders. Justice McKenna asked how this was to be done, adding:
 "Manifestly only in such way as the courts having Jurisdiction to give. All powers are given in view of that 1u- risdiction and the amendments for in- terstate commerce are so framed. Ju- risdiction to issue mandamus is con- ferred by section 6, to enforce the fil- ing or publishing by a common car rier of the schedules or tariffs of rates. and charges and such Jurisdiction also given the court and district courts upon the relation of any person, firm or corporation. alleging violation of any of the provisions of the act which prevents the relator from hasing inter- state traffic moved on terms as favor able as any other shippers. The rem- edy is expressly made cumulative as are the other remedies provided by the act.
 It is clear, therefore, that when congress intended to give the power to issue mandamus it expressed taat intention explicitly. Such power can not be enforced from the grant of au- thority to the commission to enforce the act or from the direction to dis trict attorneys or the attorney ger- eral to institute all necessary pro- ceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of tlte act The proceedings meant are as we have said, those with in the Jurisdiction of the court. And special remedies are given. For in- instance, by section Is, & summary proceeding in equity Is authorized and the form of the ultimate order of the court may be that of a writ of in- junction or other proper process man. datory or otherwise' Without at- tempting now to define the extent of that section we may, 1t seems, ade- quate to enable the commission to en- force any order 1t is authorized to make"