The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-02-20
SUPREME COURT
AGAINST C. & D.
Carrier Can't Become Dealer in
the Commodities Carried
BY III.
QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION
c. and o. Agreed to Deliver Large
Quantity Of Coal to New
Haven Road.
(By Associated Presa.)

WASHINGTON, D. c., February TO-.
Justice White to-day delivered the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of tho New York,
New Haven and Hartford Railroad Com
pany vs. the Interstate Commerce Com
mission and the Interstate Commerce
Commission v5. the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad Company. affirming the decision
OF the United States Circuit Court for the
Western District of Virginia. The cases
involved the question of discrimination in
freight rates on coal by the Chesapeake
and Ohio in favor of the New York New
Haven and Hartford road rs against
other shippers. The decision dealt in
detail with the question of discrimination
by railroad companies, and 1t was appa-
rent that 1t was intended to have gem
eral application to questions receiving
attention at the hands of the public. JUS
tice White said that to permit a carrier
to become a dealer in the commodities
carried by 1t would be to supply means
for the perpetuation of evils which the
Interstate Commerce Commission is in
tended to remedy.
Discrimination Charged.
These cases involved charge OF dis
road by the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
road in the matter of railroad freight
rates The cases grew out of compllca-
tions arising in connection with a con.
tract made between the two railroad
companies in 1906. In accordance with
which the Chesapeake and Ohio road
minous coal to the New Haven road he
first Of July. 1907; The delivery in ts
last year covered by the contract so fell
account Of a Strike in the coal fields
which rendered 1t impossible to supply
the coal. The New Haven road purchas-
ed coal elsewhere and presented II bill
to the Chesapeake and Ohio Company
for siO3.c00. representing the differ nee III
cost. Instead of paying the money the
the sixty thousand tons of coal, notwith-
standing the price of coal and of trans
portation had advanced to such an cx-
tent that II Is claimed that the Chesa-
per ton on It's shipments. The case was
brought to the attention of the Inter-
State Commerce Commission. and o the
charge. made that the transaction con-
Stituted preference in the matter of
freight rates in favor of the New Haven
road.
Contended It Was Vendor.
The company contended that it was act
ing in the capacity of a vendor and
not as a carrier and that 1t -twas mere
~ SuplllSl tit Cotil W pay IL utDl. u HIS
plea was also made the basis of II charge
against the company. as the laws uf
West Virginia. where the coal was mined,
prohibited common carriers from deal
ing.
The Circuit Court he'd, however, that
as there is no Federal statute against
railroads acting as vendors, that ques-
ton need not be considered: hence the
less should be considered as a Dealers
loss. But while so holding. the cour. de-
cided that II the transaction involved an
10 n md hct nj tnI h1ra 60
shipper as against another, it was in
violation of the Interstate Commerce.
law. This condition was adjudged to have
contract to have been Illegal and enjoin-
ed further proceedings under 1t. The
lower court also held that the strike
could not be held to absolve the Chesa-
peake and Ohio from the requirement to
deliYer the coal under its contract