The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1907-10-19
ROADS ASK INJUNCTION AGAINST
STATE Commission.
Petition Filed in Federal Court
at Seattle to Restrain Enforce
ment of Order of September
20 and Praying that State Law
Be Declared Invalid.

against the state railway commission
and its effort to enforce the state rail-
way commission law, passed in 1905
by the Washington legislature. These
three companies have filed in the fed
eral court here petition against the
railway commission and against each
other asking for temporary injunc-
ton restraining the commission from
enforcing it's order of September 90,
in which it put the joint rate law in
to effect, and praying that the lew
itself be declared unconstitutional.
The complaints are all directed
against Fl. A. Fairchild, J. G. Law
renee and Jesse Jones. as members of
the state railway commission, and At
torney General John D. Atkinson.
Although the case has been in the
federal courts before, the present case
is instituted to finally test the valid
ity of the law passed by the legisla-
ture giving the commission power to
fix joint rate on wheat in this state.
History of Litigation
The original bill filed by the Oregon
Railroad and Navigation Company
against the railway commission, which
sought an injunction against the
commissioners order August /, 1906,
establishing joint rate on wheat,
states that the commission required
the railroad company, upon the de-
mand of any shipper along the line,
to haul wheat in carload lots to Wal
lula junction, there to be delivered
to the Northern Pacific, or to Spokane
for delivery to the Great Northern.
It fixed maximum rate of 10 12
cents hun 1red pounds, or 1885 per
ton for the entire haul over all lines,
but did not fix the division between
the carrier companies. This resulted
from a hearing held in Eastern Wash
ington in the summer of 1906. The
bill of the railroad company sought
to secure decree declaring the act
creating the commission unconstitu-
tional and alleged that the joint wheat
rate order was unreasonable and in
terfered with interstate commerce.
The court then issued temporary
restraining order, pending final decree,
restraining the commission from en-
forcing it's joint rate order.
+ Acting under amendments to the
state commission law, passed by the
last legislature, the commission, on
May 10, formerly revoked the joint
wheat order it had promulgated on
August ], but at the same time made
another directing the companies to
appear on June 81, of this year, to
answer complaints regarding joint
traffic. The O. R. & N. claims this
paved the way for another joint rate
order, and to forestall this the COM
pany asked the injunction to be made
permanent.
Oil Case Dismissed
On June 10, three days before the
day set by the commission for hearing
complaints against the Interchange
of traffic between the roads, the COM
mission appeared before judge Han
ford to show cause why it should not
be restrained from holding it's hear
ing. A. J. Faulkner, assistant ator-
ney general, moved for dismissal Of
the case on the ground that the COM
mission had ablogated its joint rate
order of August, 1906, against which
the restraining order had been issued,
and asked that it be declared perman.
emit so that real test of the joint rate
legislation might Zee made. This was
done by the court, which, however,
allowed the commission to hear the
traffic complaints.
In bill in equity covering Is close.
~ written pages the railroads essay to
show why the order is demonstrations
al. They state that the second order
requiring then to put the joint rate
into effect, served on September 90,
failed to provide which railroad shall
furnish cars for these joint shipments,
what shall be paid each railroad by
the other road, to what place the cars
shall be returned after the wheat
shipment is made, who shall keep an
account of these shipments and who
is responsible for loss and delay.
Roads Cannot Agree
It is alleged that the roads cannot
agree between themselves on this
point, aud that in fixing these matters
by peremptory order the commits
sion is making each road bear an IN
Just portion of the burden. If oom-
PEELED to do this, the complainants
declare, freedom of contract will be
denied. This they declare to be un-
constitutional. Hence the effort to
get relief in the United States courts
The old argument that the complain
ant roads conduct an interstate bust
ness and are not subject to state laws
which shall regulate traffic that ia
bound for Portland or any other out
side point is also advanced.
| It 10 stated that the commission ID
now threatening to impose. on these
roads the penalties provided for by the
state law, and against the possibility
Of this they are now asking for an in
junction.
Wenatchee, Got. 1O.-Fruit from
~