Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-29
AGAINST COAL ROADS
COMPLAINT HEARD BY TIE IN
TERsTATE COMMISSION.

| Reargument of the case of William r.
Hearst of New York against the anthracite
coal carrying roads was begun here today
before the interstate commerce commits
sion. The case already has been dis
cussed at length. Briefly, the action in
wolves complaint by Mr.. Hearst that the
rates for carrying anthracite coal from
the mines to tidewater are too high
Today's proceedings were instituted at the
instance of the interstate commerce. com
mission. which desired further information
in view of the recent decision of the SUI
preme Court of the United States in the
cases of the New York, New Haven and
Hartford aqd the Chesapeake and Ohio
railroad companies holding in effect that
it is contrary to public policy for com
mon carrier to be dealer in the commool-
ties that It transports
Mr. Hearst was represented before the
commission today by c. ]. Shearn of New
York Winnie the railroads were represented
by the following: j. d. Campbell fhlia-
delphia. the Philadelphia and Reading: r.
l. Gowen. Philadelphia. the PENNSYLVANIA;
w. S. Jenney. New York the Delaware,
I.ackawanna and Western; Robert W. De
Forest, Philadelphia, the Central railroad
of New Jersey; j. b. Kerr. New York, the
New York, Ontario and western; George
f. Brownell New York. the Erie; H L.
Newcomb of this city, the Delaware and
Hudson
Mr.. Shearn's Argument
Mr. C. J. Shearn of New York, for Mr..
Hearst, presented the complainants SIDE
of the case. His argument occupied most
of the morning session. He said that the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of the Chesapeake and Ohio road disposed
of all the contentious that the railroads
had previously set up in their own defense
The only possible loophole for escape open
to them were TIE cases of Haddock and OF
Coke Bros. decided by the commission in
1890 and 1891. These, cases, however, ne
said. were not parallel by any means.
Mr.. Shearn then proceeded to an e'aho-
rate analysis of these two cases and ar
gued that the question of coal purchase
contracts or of the right of a carrier to
buy it for transportation was not IN issue
in either Of those cases, and that in neither
of the cases was a violation of section u
of the act involved; this section dealing
with the subject of departure from the
published tariffs.
The arguments in the case probably viii
continue for a day or two longer before
the commission Is ready to hand down its
decision.
Agents Gathering Information.
The interstate commerce commission has
begun its investigation of the relations Of
the railroad companies toward the coal
lands and the coal industry of the country,
and now has in the field number of agents
who are to make a report on the situation
which will be the basis of further pro-
ceedings by the commission.
In respect to the oil industry the COM
mission has decided 10 take no active steps
toward making an investiga ION in accord
ance with the resolution of Congress direct
ing an investigation into the relations Of
the oil and coal industries with the rail-
roads.
Nothing will be done in respect to the
oil investigation until the commission has
some knowledge of what has been ascer-
tanned by the Department of Commerce
and Labor, which has for more than a year
been gathering data in respect TO oil. AS
soon as the commission has knowledge of
the report which is in preparation by Com
missioner Garfield it will make plans for
a continued investigation along that line.
The Garfield report will not deal extern
svely it is believed, with the relations be-
tween the oil industry and the railroads, as
the act of Congress authorizing the crea-
ton of the bureau of corporations spe-
ciically provided that it should not en-
trench upon the work of the interstate
commerce commission in undertaking to
deal with subjects that the interstate COM
nlerce commission is expressly authorized
by law to handle.