Omaha daily bee., 1905-12-05
PHILIPS HOLDS FOR ROADS
Federal Judgs at Kansas City Disolaims
Jurisdiction in Contempt Case.
tlNNs LAW DOES NOT Apply TO SUIT
Decides that santa re Was victim of
salt Company aud state
Court should Hear
Matter.

H~ANNNN 1
Matter.
KANSAS CITY. Dec. s.--Judge John +.
Philips. in the United states district court
for the western district of Missouri, today
delivered an opinion holding that his court
was without Jurisdiction in the cases
brought here by the federal government
charging the Missouri Pacific, the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe and other railways
with giving rebates on shipments OF salt
in Kansas and on coal in Colorado and
other products in violation OF the Elkins
act. The motion of the railways to quash
the proceedings was granted.
On March %. 1902, at the instisaton Of
the attorney generals Office at Washington,
Judge Philips granted a temporary order
restraining the Missouri Pacific, the Santa
Fe, the Chicago & Alton. the Burlington
and the Rock Island railroad companies
from giving alleged rebates on various
products. Last summer NJ, d. Purdy. as
sistant attorney general, brought additional
proceedings, citing the officials of the rail-
ways for contempt, on the allegation that
! they had violated the courts order in
continuing to give rebates. The contempt
proceedings were argued in Judge Philips
court on November IS when the attorneys
for the railways moved that the proceed
ings be auashed. claiming that the court
was without jurisdiction. Judge Philips
today in delivering his opinion, which sus-
tanned the motion Of tho railways. was very
lengthy and went into detail in covering
the points involved The grounds Of the
decision predcated in the opinion are sub
stantlally as follows:
Basis of Decision.
The original bill of complaint on which
! the restraining order was granted March
| 20, 1902 was filed at the instance OF the
attorney general of the United States predi-
/ Gated of alleged violations of the inter
state commerce. law in granting rebates
| on shipments of grain and packing house
products from Kansas City to eastern
points. This suit is based on the concep-
ton OF the attorney general that the
United States had right TO resort to the
! United States circuit court in equity to
carry out the policy of the interstate COM
MERGE law and OF enjoln railroads generally
| from violating 1t. But after the temporary
restraining order was made. and after the
demurrer to the original bill was argued
and submitted, the supreme court of the
United States In the case OF the Missouri
Pacific Railway company against the
| United States. 1S9th United States reports,
| decided that the United States circuit
court had no jurisdiction to grant such
relief; so when the restraining order was
issued by the United States circuit court
of the western district of Missouri, the
court was without jurisdiction, and. there
fore, the defendant could not be held in
contempt of the court for violating an
order which it was without jurisdiction to
| make.
EILins' Law too Late.
Second. while what is known as the
Elkins' act, passed by congress in Febru-
airy, 1908 authorized such proceeding by
the United States district attorney of tho
\ Jurisdiction where the offense was COM
mitted, this act being passed nearly year
after the restraining order of March IS,
1902, had no retroactive operation so as TO
validate that ofdert And while the original
suit might, after the passage Of the
Elkins' act, have been continued in force
by the amendment thereof. on the part of
the states attorney alleging that the rail-
road company was then continuing to grant
rebates of the character mentioned In the
original bill; yet. no such action was taken
| by the district attorney and IL 1t had been
the injunction to be granted would have
been predicated OF acts done by the rail-
| road company at the time OF the amended
proceedings under the Elkins act. but Il
would not have a reactive effect so as to
validate the original Injunction order. And
furthermore. the ofiense charged In the in
formation for contempt is the alleged
granting of rebates by the defendant rail-
| road company on the commodity of salt
shipped from Hutchinson. Kan. year or
more after the granting of the temporary
restraining order. and OF subject matter of
commerce. entirely different from that COW
cred by the restraining order-an offense
committed In the jurisdiction OF the United
States circuit court Of Kansas. and which
should have been proceeded in by the
United States district attorney Of that
state.
state should Act.
The court commented upon the fact that
the Hutchinson (Kansas) Salt company was
using a short line railroad connecting with
it's plant and also connecting with the de-
PENDANT railway company, the information
charging that the stockholders OF said
short railroad we're the same as the stock
holders OF the Hutchinson (Kansas) Salt
company; and that the defendant railway
had entered into a joint trafhc arrange
ment with that road in the shipment OF
Ealt. making an unreasonable division of
the Joint rate with the short line road.
i ne court IN Its Oplulou dnihhdoNeIS UPON
bringing such question before the United
States court for determination in a collateral
contempt proceeding, rather than proceed
ing where the short line railroad vas in
corporated aud where all OF its business
was conducted. 1t is for the state authori-
ties. Il says. to determine whether the
state corporation is violating the law OF
its creation in charging excessive rates;
that congress has never undertaken to de-
termine which is the reasonable or the
equitable division Of joint rates between
two railroad companies.
santa Re Vietim.
The Interstate commerce act only re-
quires that the joint rate which is a matter
| OF private contract between the companies,
when made. shall be hled with the Inter
, state Commerce commission at Washington
and that Il shall not be departed from: that,
: II the per cent OF the rate charged is un-