The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-23
DECISION OF
 IMPORTANCE Question of Jurisdiction
 is Settled. ON OCEANIC TRANSPORTATION Interstate Commerce Commission Decides Against Itself. The opinion in The Gaze, which |. Very voIuminous, is An Ex-
 haustive Diseassion of
 The Law.

Washington. March 22-A decision was promulgated today by the Inter- state Commerce Commission in what probably is the most Important case which the commission for Q long time has been called upon to determine.
 1t is that of the Cosmopolitan ship ping Company. Philadelphia ofgani- zation, chartered under the laws of New Jersey, against the Hamburg American Packet Company; the North German Lloyd Steamship Company; the Eilson (Hnll) Lines and the Scandi- navian Lines.
 The compiainant,s petition was filed with the commission nearly a year ago Some time subsequently,. the de- fendants filed demurrer, attacking the Jurisdiction of the Interstate Com. merce Commission. Oral Arguments on the demurrer were heard by the conn mission. Ward ". Pierson appearing for the Cosmopolitan Company and William c. Choats and Harrington Putnam for the defendants. The oral arguments were followed by extensive briefs which the commission hRs~fsau under consideration for sexeKMP weeks.
 The opinion in thesrcase. which Is very voluminous. was prepared by Commissioner Franklin K. Lane. II is an exnaustive discussion of the law sbearing upon the case and lucid Commission.
 Decision aa Importanf.
 The decision Is peculiarly impor- tant not only because 1t affects large interests which hitherto have not been brought before a Judicial tribunal Of this country, but because 1t affects materially the powers of the Inter state Commerce Commission. Tn brief and in effect. the commission decides no authority over oceanic transporta- tion and thus determines the case ad- verseiy to the contention of the com plainant.
 In this case. the complainant ai- legged that the defendant steamship companies transport traffic under through bills Of lading between tKa land points of the United states and foreign ports and are thereby sub jest to the Jurisdiction of the com mission; that the defendants 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 Dem mark. Sweden, Norway, Finland and German points on the Baltic; that this so-called Baltic pooI' arbitrarily de.
 
 inland points of the United States to such foreign ports via the North Att lantic ports; and that the Hamburg American Packet Company maintains a monoply of west bound and east bound traffic forwarded on local and on through bills of lading between Ger many and other continental countries and inland cities of the United States. The prayer of the petition is that the | ha to be an illegal pooling of freights under the Interstate Commerce Act, that the monoply of the Hamburg American Packet Company be declared unlawful and that relief be granted to the complainant, which also is a trans Atlantic Steamship Company do- ing a freight business between Ameri- can and continental ports.
 Nc Jurfsdictien.
 To this complaint. the defendants de- murred, on the ground. first that the commission had no jurisdiction of the subject of power to proceed against the defendants, and. secondly. that the complaints set forth no matter which is cognizable by the commission of which 1t has been given the authority to remedy.
 The commission sustains the demur- ror and directs in an order that the complaint be dismissed.
 In his discussion of the reasons for the commissions action in this im- portant proceeding Commissioner Lane sets out these conclusions:
 sThis commission has no Jurisdic- ton as to shipments moving from ports of the United States to a for eign country not adjacent when such shipments are not carried by rail, or rail and water, from an inland point nf n a an TIT nj An inland movement of export or import trafic Is a condition precedent to the attaching of Jurisdiction.
 '"The Jurisdiction of this Commission is not to be determined by any other than the language of section l of the act, and in this section Is found a clear distinction drawn between the interstate commerce and foreign com merce to a country not adjacent to the United States; and this distinction saves much foreign commerce from the effect of that provision of the section as to continuous carriage beyond the American seaboard.
 '"rhe Commission may regulate in- terstate traffic. whether by rail or by a combined rail-and- water route. from poInt of receipt to point of delivery; hut the Commission in It's control over foreign commerce is limited to the regulation of such trafic whether by railroad or by a combination of rail and water carriage, from and to the point of transhipment
 Accepts Interpretation.
 The act provides no machinery by which its provisions can be enforced as to Atlantic steamship lines: that absence of such provision can he explained only by accepting the Incarceration that the Commission has m turisdictlon In the premises.
 .srhe pooling of traffic by water car riers is plainly a matter over which the Commission has no Jurisdiction.
 "A rail carrier may control. and connect with a line of steamships in eared in foreign commerce. with which 1t may interchange business as freely as with another ralI carrier, ana it may quote a combined rate for fine through movement. the agent of the railroad company acting as the agents of the steamship company in SO doing.
 'The act provides that this Com mission shall exercise Jurisdiction over the inland portion of the haul. either to or from the foreign coun-
 N.ofraIN.r anA