The Cairo bulletin., 1908-03-23
|MPORTANTEFFECT
UPON COMMERCE
INTERSTATE COMM SSlON DE-
clDEs IT HAS NO JURISDaC-
i TlON IN CASE OF
ALLEDCEO COMBINATION
Between Railroads and Steamship
Companies in Favor OF Eastern
Export Points-May
Try Again.

Washington, March ga decision
was promulgated today by the Inter
state Commerce Commission in wha
probably is the most important cas-
which the commission for lcng tim
has been called upon to determine.
Company. a Philadelphia organiza
tion chartered under the laws of New
Jersey, against the Hamburg American
Packet Company: the North German
Lloyd Steamship Company; the vii
son (HulD Lines and the Scandina
yian-American Lines.
The complainant's petition was file
with the commission nearly a yeai
ago. Some time subsequently the de
PENDANTS filed a demurrer, attacking
the jurisdiction of the Interstate Com
merce Commission. Oral arguments on
the demurrer were heard by the com
mission, Ward w Pierson appearing
for the Cosmopolitan Company and
former Senator John c. Spooner
Judge William G.. Choate and Harring
ton Putnam for the defendants The
oral arguments were followed by ex-
tensive briefs which the commission
has had under consideration for sever
al weeks
The opinion In the case, which is
very voluminous, was prepared by
Commissioner Franklin K Lane 1t Is
an exhaustive discussion of the law
bearing upon the case and lucid
statement of the conclusions of the
commission.
The decision is peculiarly important
not only because it affects large inter
ests which hitherto hays not been
brought before judicial tribunal Of
this country but because it affects
materially the powers of the Interstate,
Commerce Commission. In brief and
in effect, the commission decides
against itself. 1t holds that 1t has no
authority over oceanic transportation
and thus determines the case adverse
ly to the contention of the complain,
ant.
Merits of the Case.
In this case the complainant alleged
that the defendant steamship compan-
les transport traffic under through
bills of lading between inland points
of the United States and foreign ports
and are thereby subject to the jurisdic
tion of the commission; that the de
PENDANTS have made an arrangement
for the pooling of east bound export
traffic moving by rail to Atlantic ports
and thence by Steamship lines TO
points In Denmark Sweden, Norway
Finland and German points on the Bal
tic that this so-cailed Baltic pool
arbitrarily determines the ultimate
rates from such inland points CT the
United States to such foreign ports via
the North Atlantic ports; and that the
Hamburg American Packet Company
maintains monopoly of westbound
and east bound traffic forwarded on 10
cal and on through bills Of lading be
tween Germany and other continentsi
countries and inland cities of the Uni.
ted States. The prayer of the petition |
is that the commission declare the |
Baltic pool to be an illegal pooling |
of freights under the Interstate Com
merce act. that the monopoly of the |
Hamburg.American Packet Company
be declared unlawful and that relief be
granted to the complainant, which also
is a transatlantic steamship company
doing freight business between Am
erican and continental ports.
To this complaint the defendants
demurred, on the ground first that the
commission has no jurisdiction of the
subject matter or power to proceed
against the defendants, and, secondly |
that the complaint sets forth no mat
ter which is cognizable by the com
or which 1t has been given
authority to remedy.
The commission sustains the de-
murrer and directs in an order that
the complaint be dismissed.
No Jurisdiction.
In his discussion of the reasons for
the commissions action in this i'm
portant proceeding. Commissioner
Lane sets out these conclusions:
This commission has no jurisdic-
tion as to shipments moving from
ports of the United States to for
cign country not adjacent when such
shipments are not carried by rail. or
by rail and water, from an inland
point of origin to a port of trans-ship-
ment. An inland movement of export
or import traffic is condition prece
dent to the attaching of jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of this Commits
sion is not to be determined by any
other than the language of section [
Of the act, and in this section is found
4 clear distinction drawn between in
terstate commerce and foreign com
nerce to country not adjacent to the