The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-20
AGAINST RAILROAD
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CoMMIs-
 SION IS UPHELD.
Justice wblte of United States Supreme Court Delivers Opinion Regarding
 Discrimination as to
 Freight Hates.

Washington, Feb. 19.--Justice White today delivered the opinion of the Su- prene Court of the United States in the case of New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad versus the. Inter- State Commerce Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission yer sus the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company. affirming the decision of the United States Circuit Court for the western district of Virginia. The cases involved charge of discrimination in freight rates on contract by the Chesa- peake and Ohio in favor of the New York, New Haven and Hartford road as against other shippers. The decis- ion was against the railroad company. The decision dealt with the question of discrimination by railroad companies and 1t was apparent that 1t was intend ed to have a general application to questions receiving attention at the hands of the public. Justice White said to permit a carrier to- become a dealer in the commodities carried by if would be to supply a means for the per petuation of evils which the interstate Commerce Commission is intended to remedy.
 These cases involved a charge of dis crimination in favor of the New Haven road by the Chesapeake and Ohio The cases grew out of complications aris- ing in connection with contract made between the two railroad companies in 1896 in connection with which the Chesapeake and Ohio road agreed to deliver two million tons of bituminous coal to the New Haven road between the first of July, 1897, and the first of July, 1900. The delivery in the last year covered by the contract fell short to the extent of 60.000 tons on account of strike in the coal fields which rem dered it impossible to supply the coal. TYnx elsewhere and presented a bill to the Chesapeake and Ohio company for SlO3, 900, representing the difference in cost. Instead of paving the money, tho Cshesapeake and Ohio company deliver ed the 60,00O tons of coal. notwith- standing the price of coal and of trans nortation had advanced so that u Is ciaInned the Chesapeake and Ohio lost more than a dollar per ton on It's ship nients The case was brought to the attention of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the charge made that tbe transaction constituted prefer snre in the matter of freight rates in taS,or of the New HavGn road. The comnany contended that 1t was acting tn the capacity of a vendor and not as . carrier and that 1t was merely sup n,vine the coal to pay debt. This pisa was also made the basis of charge against the companies as the la was mined, prohibit common carriels from dealing in coal. - .A,. The circuit court held, however, that as there is no federal statute against Tailroads acting as vendors that auGs- .tn, need not be considered. hence the sr.s ~ ouId be considered as dealers 8 sHt while so holding. the court
 that if the transaction involved
 ,ai and substantial benefit to
 pper as against another, 1t was
 lion of the interstate commerce
 his condition was adjudged to
 evailed and the trial court held
 tract to have been illegal and
 further proceedings under it.
 ,s aside for the time the other
 ,s. Justice White took up the
 1t appears under the interstate
 ee law and stated the question
 ,cided as to be the following;
 a carried engaged in interstate
 .e the power to control, to sell