The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1906-02-23
Charge Of Discrimination.

ed TO remedy.
Charge Of Discrimination.
These cases involved a charge Of
discrimination lii favor of the New
Haven road by the Chesapeake and
Ohio. The cases grew out of compli-
cations existing In connection with q
contract made between the two rail-
road companies in 1896, in accordance
with which the Chesapeake and Ohio
road agreed to deliver 100000 tons
Of bitunninous coal to the New Haven
road between the LIST of July, 1897, and
the hrst OF July, 1902. The delivery
IN the last year covered by the con-
tract fell short to the extent of 10000
6elds which rendered it impossible to
supply the coal. The New Haven road
purchased Coal elsewhere n pre-
scented q bill to h Chesapeake and
Ohio company for $103,000, represent,
ing the difference IN cost. Instead of
b company delivered the co. 900 tons
OF coal, Notwithstanding the price of
coal and OF transportation had adj
vanced 80 that 1t Is claimed the Chesa-
peake and Ohio lost more than 81 per
ton on It's shipments.
Could Not Sustain Plea.
The case was brought to the atten-
to- of the Interstate Commerce com-
sion and h charge made that the
t~ranSaction constituted a preference In
The matter OF freight rates IL favor of
b New q road. The company
commended that 1t was acting In the ca
pActty OF q vendor and not as a carrier
and that 1t was merely supplying the
Goa to pay q debt. This plea was also
made the basis of q charge against the
company. as the laws of West Virginia,
where the GOAL was mined, prohibit
common carriers from dealing in coal.
The circuit court held, however, that
a. there is no federal statute against
railroads acting az vendors, that ques-
ton need not be considered. hence the
loss shOuld be considered as a Dealers
loss. But while 80 holding, the court
decided that II the transaction involved
an actual and substantial benefit to one
shipper ~ against another 1t was in
violation OF the interstate commerce
Law. This condition. was adjudged to
have prevailed, and b trial cour held
the contract to have been illegal and
en5oined further proceedings under 1t.
The lower U also held that the
strike could not be held to absolve the
Chesapeake n Ohio from the re-
quirement to deliver the coal under its
contract.
Putting aside fo- the time all other
questions, Justice White took UP tn
case IL 1t appears under the interstate
commerce law and stated the question
to be decided to be the following:
The Question ut Issue.
Has a carrier engaged in interstate
the power to contract to sell
and transport in completion of the con-
tract the commodity sold When the
price stipulated In the contract does
not pay the cost of purchase, the cost
of delivery and the published freight
rates?"
Justice White said there were practi-
cally no previous decisions of the court
to quote az presidents because hereto
fore the features OF the interstate com
merce law dealing with determinations,
rebates and favoritism have not been
involved in cases in the court. He said:
1T cannot be challenged that the
great purpose of the act to regulate
while seeking to prevent un-
just and unreasonable rates was to Sc
cure equality of rates to all n to
destroy favorit1sln. Now, in view of
the positive command OF the second sec
ton Of the act, that no departure from
the published rate shall be made .df-
rectly or Indirectly how can it in rea-
son be held that a carrier may take
Itself from out the statute In every case
oy simply electing to be a dealer and
transport a commodity in that harac
4er? For, of course, If q carrier has a
right TO disregard the published rates
by resorting to a particular form Of
dealing 1t must follow that there is no
obligation OIL the part of a carrier to adj
here to the rates, because doing so Is
merely voluntary. The all embracing
prohibition against either directly or
Indirectly charging less than the pub
Eshed rates shows that the purpose
Ct the statute was to make the prohi-
bition applicable to every method OF
dealing by a carrier by which the for
hidden result: could be brought about
Purpose Of the Act
Proceeding, he declared the purpose
Of the act to be ITO compel the carrier
AS u public agent to give equal treat
nleIt to ALL" He added:
Now, II by the mere fact Of cur-
chasing m selling merchandise to be
transported q carrier is endowed with
the poMaer of disregarding the published
rate it becomes apparent that the ear
sier possesses the right to treat owners
of Ike oommodities by entirely different
Sufcs. Interpreting h prohibitions of
the statute as@it is commended they
should be It would follow that every in
Siividuals would be bound by the present
staJiM and the carrier alone would be
to disregard It. Thus. the statute.
while subjeciipx the public to the pro-
hi6ttsons.s would exempt the carrier and
NiOnld thereby enormously increase the
~ofpOrtunities Of the latter to do the
wrong which the statute was enacted
4OHpFovent.
Ana the considerations previously
stated serve also TO demonstrate that