Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1906-02-21
A Highly Important Decision.

Justice White and concurTed In by the
other justices, on Monday last, is regarded
~ being Of the greatest importance, in
thaA Il involves the question Of railroads
engaged IN the coal carrying business
engaging also IN tho business Of mining,
buying and selling coal. Il deals par
ticularly with complaints that have been
made Of such coal mining railroads prac-
tlcally granting lower rates for coal TO
favored customers through a lower rate
for carrying coal than is charged for carry
ing the coal Of independent operators.
The decision Of the Supreme Court, in
effect, Is that railroads have no right in
hw to deal in the commodities which
they haul over their lines
This decision falls principally on the
railroads which directly or indirectly own
coal mines and sell their products, but II
the courts sustain the claim of the Inter
state Commerce Commission that private
car lines arc common carriers the principle
laid down may also include them, so that
the owners Of refrigerator cars would be
prohibited from using their own cars for
the transportation Of their products
The case arose in n suit instituted in the
United States Circuit Court Of the District
Of West Virginia by the Interstate Com
merce Commission to enioin the carrying
out Of contract under which the Chesa-
peake & Ohio Railway Co. agreed to de-
liver at New Haven 10000 tons of New
River coal for the New York, New Haven
& Hartford Railroad Co. at S2.75 per ton.
The price of coal at the mines, plus the
cost Of transportation from Newport News
TO New Haven, was s247 per ton, while
the published rate from the mine to New
port News was s1.45 per ton, and the bill
was based on the claim that this was in
effect a discrimination, in that the com
pany carried tho coal for less than the
usual rates.
The company denied this and alleged
that It was a loss it sustained on the price
OF the coal and that il took this means to
reimburse the New Haven road for some
100000 which It had lost through the in
ability to FIJI a previous contract owing to
a strike Of miners.
Tho Circuit Court held that there was no
violation Of the rebate provision Of the
Interstate Commerce act, but held that
the contract between tho two roads was
illegal and enioined its enforcement. The
two roads and the commission appealed.
The Supreme Court takes up the con-
tract in question and also the previous con-
tract, which was for 100000 tons, with
deliveries guaranteed by J. Pierpont Nor
gan. The various phases of both contracts
are considered at length, and the conclu-
sion was reached that they were void. as in
violation of the Interstate Commerce act,
because the margin for freight rates was
lower than established rates. Turning then
20 the question whether carrier engaged
IN interstate commerce has the power to
sell and transport in completion Of the
contract the commodity sold, when tho
price stipulated in tho contract does not
pay the cost Of purchase the cost of de-
livery and the published freight rates. the
opinion Of the court, delivered by Justice
White, says;
"Ihe previous decisions Of this court
concerning the Interstate Commerce act
do not afford much aid in determining this
question. This is the case because.
although that act was adopted in 1887
and questions concerning the import of the
act have been often here, such questions
have not generally involved the operation
and effect Of the act concerning the com
mand that published rates be adhered to
and the prohibitions against discrimina-
tion,favortism OF rebates, but mainly have
concerned the meaning Of the act in other
respects; that is, involved deciding
whether powers asserted as to other sub
-ects were vested by tho act in the Inter
state Commerce Commission. There are
several leading cases decided by the COM
mission which arc relied upon by the two
railroads, directly relating to the oues-
tion We have stated, but, as We shall have
occasion hereafter to weigh they import.
we shall not now pause to analyze and
apply them.
'lt cannot be challenged that the great
purpose Of the act to regulate commerce
while seeking to prevent unjust and un-
reasonable rates, was to secure equality
OF rates as TO all and to destroy favoritism.
these last being accomplished by requiring
the publication of tariffs and by prohibit
ing secret departures from such tariffs.
and iorbidding ebates, preferences and all
other forms Of undue discrimination. To
tins extent and for these purposes the
statute was remedial and is. therefore.
-otitied to receive that Interpretation
~hieh reasonably accomplishes the great
public purpose which it was enacted TO
subserve. That a carrier engaged in in
terstate commerce becomes subject TO
such commerce to the commands Of the
statute and may not set its provisions at
naught, whatever otherwise NAV be its
power when carrying on commerce not