The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-12-04

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 for the western district Of Mis-
souri, the court was without jurisdiction
to make it; and therefore the defend
ant could not be held to be in contempt
of the court for violating an order
which it was without jurisdiction to
make.
Second-While what is known as the
Elkins act, passed by congress in Feb
ruary. 1903, authorized such a proceed
ing by the United States district attOr-
ney of the jurisdiction where the Of
tense was committed, this act, being
passed nearly a year after the restrain
ing order of March Is, 1902, had no
retroactive operation so as to validate
that order. And while the original suit
might, after the passage of the Eikins
act, have continued in force by an
amendment thereof or summary mo-
ton on the part of the United States
attorney, alleging that the railroad
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
if it had been, the injunction to be
granted would have been predicated
of acts being done by the railroad COM
pany at the time of the amended pro-
ceedings under the Elkins act But it
would not have had retroactive effect
so as to validate the original Injunction
order. and furthermore, the offense
charged IN the information FOR con-
tempt is the alleged granting of re-
bates by the defendant railroad COM
pany on the commodity Of salt shipped
from Hutchinson, Kan, a year or more
after the granting of the temporary re-
straining order, and on a subject mat
| ter of commerce entirely different from
that covered by the restraining order
an offense committed in the jurisdic-
ton Of the United States in Kansas and
which should have been proceeded in
by the United States district attorney
Of that state, instead of resorting to an
/ Information in this Jurisdiction
Hits Salt Company.
The court commented upon the fact
/ that the Hutchinson Kansas Salt com
pany was using a short line railroad
connecting with its plant and also con-
Meeting with the defendant railroad
company, the information charging that
! the stockholders Of said short railroad
were the same as the stockholders of
/ the Hutchinson-Kansas Salt company
and that the defendant railroad com
pany had entered into Joint traffic
arrangement with that road in the ship
/ ment OF salt, making an unreasonable
/ division of the joint rate with the short
! line road The court in its opinion ami
/ madverts upon beginning such cues
! ton before this court for determine ton
| in collateral contempt proceeding
rather than proceeding in the jurisdic-
I ton where the short line railway com
pany was incorporated and where all of
its business was conducted It is for
| the state authorities, it says to deter
mine whether the state corporation is
violating the law of it's creation in
charging excessive rates; that congress
has never undertaken to determine what
is the reasonable or equitable division
Of joint rates between two railroad
companies. The interstate commerce
act only requires that the Joint rate
which is a matter of private contra ct
between the companies, when made
shall be filed with the interstate COM
n1erce commission at Washington. and
that it shall not be departed from; that
if the per cent OF the rate charged is
unduly apportioned to the local state
road the salt company cEyed it for the
purpose "of holding up the Atchison
! Topeka & Santa F'e Railway companv
/ by refusing to do business with it un,
less it would submit to the exorbitanl
exaction; that the greatest offender il
such transactions is the shipper an(
instead Of going directly after the ship
per under the law, the goyernmen
4 seeks alone, by a contempt proceeding
to punish the railroad company who ha
been held up by the shipper; and tina
the government viii never strike at tn
root Of the rebate evil until it goes af
ter the shipper as well as the railroads
that it is not fair play and "a squar
dear that the railroads should FIRST b
! s'held up by the shipper and then nun
ished by the government for being "hel
up while the shipper gets the s'rak
Off" the court suggested in the opinion
that the railroads could best assist il
relieving themselves from such an att
tude by opening, rather than closing
the mouths of those under their contrC