The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-01-16
'ecision Rendered by Judge
Pritcliard Most Important
in Many Years.
THE EFFECT ON OPERATORS
Interpretation Of Interstate Com
mercc Act Involved--History
OF Famous Case.

Commission, and reversing the decision
Iof the United States Circuit Court OF
Maryland.
The suit Is an outgrowth OF tho ia.
nous Pitcairn case. in which indepen-
dent coal operators OF West Virginia
Brought charges against the Btltimore
ond Ohio Railroad, alleging discrin1inn-
tton in distribution OF freight cars. In
the present decision the court. holds
that the institution of proceedings ini|
the United States courts does not ex-
.clude any other remedy provided by
the interstate commerce act. The case
Is therefore remanded, and the lower
court Is directed to dismiss the BILL.
The original case was tried before
Judge Morris In the United States Dis
trict Court last spring.
Charges Made.
In their bill the independents made
the general nccus; tion that the Balti.
more and Ohio Railroad Comrany dis.
eliminated in the distribution OF It's
coal cars against them ana in favor Of
ind for the benefit OF the Fairmont
Coal Company, the Somerset Coal Com
pany and the Consolidation Coal Com
pony, the latter being tho parent Of
the combine, and which came under
tht control OF tho Baltimore and Ohio
many years ago. This alleged dis
elimination was held to be productive
inflicted great losses upon the indie.
ptndents. The court was asked to d.
rect that the RAILROAD company cease
to discriminate In favor OF the Corsoli.
dalton Coal Ccmpa ny; to require that
all cars owned by coal companies.
commonly known as private or indi.
vicual cars. be included In the equip.
ment OF the railroad and counted as
among the cars available for disrribu-
ton on percentage plan according
tc the rating Of the respective mines.
and that so.called foreign fuel cars
shall be placed on precisely the same
footing az the private car. Foreign
fuel cars are those cars which are
the line Of the Baltimore and Ohio to
be loaded with coal for use in the en-.
glnes OF tho owners.
After trial lasting several weeks,
In which the brightest legal minds OF
the East were pitted, Judge Morris
decided that the railroad company
must distribute the private or indi-
vidual cars on the percentage plan:
that while the owners of such cars
We're entitled to their use, they must
be charged against the allotment OF
the mines receiving them. The case
was then carried to the United States
Court of Appeals. the Baltimore and
cifo being required to file an appeal
Bond for s5500oo.
The problem Is one Of the most i'm
portant that has been brought before
any tribunal tor adjudication Involy-
ing the n,ining and marketing Of btu
n'!nous coal. Upon the final decision,
say the independents, depends the well.
fare OF the coal operators. not only OF
West Virginia, but OF Maryland ana
levery other State where bituminous
Coal Is mined.
Judge Pritchard's Decision.
Judge Pritchard handed down al
very able and exhaustive opinion, in
which it is held that the remedy by
n andamus afforded by section 90 of the
Interstate commerce act is cumulative,
and that 1t does not exclude any other
remedy provided by the Interstate Com
mercs ACT.
The case is entitled the Merchants
Coal Company. I13ellant. VS.. Fair
mont Coal Company, and others, ap-
| pellees, and Is from the Circuit Court
OF the United States for the District
OF Maryland.
AN ancillary bill was filed in this
case in the Circuit Court OF Maryland
In the case OF the Pitcairn Coal Com
pany VS.. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company, and others. mandamus pro-
ceedinss. in which ancillary bill 1t
was sought to enjoin the Merchants
Coal Company and other operators on
the Connellsville division OF the Bal
timore and Ohio Railroad from insti-
tuting proceedings before the Inter.
state Commerce Commission under Sec.
| ton 13 OF the interstate commerce
act. This section relates to the equal
distribution of cal. service among the
coal operators similarly situated.
1t was commended by the appellees
that the questions sought to be It'll
/ gated before the Interstate Commerce
4 Commission had already been deter
mined in the mandamus proceedings In
i the Circuit Court. and that they were
similar to those sought to be raised
before the Interstate Commerce COM
mission; and further the appellants
and Others similarly situated were
present and assisted the plaintiffs at
j the trial OF the nandamus proceedings.
and that they were therefore bound
by the Judgment rendered In that
A case ~
Remedy Is Cumulative. .
\ I, The court also held that the remedy
4 by mandamus afforded BY Section %
4 OF the interstate commerce act is cumu.
lative; that 1t does not exclude any
other remedy provided by the Inter.
a state commerce act: and that while the
appellants may avail themselves OF
the remedy provided in Section 90, they
may also proceed under Section Is
and invoke the remedy provided there
\ in.
The court also held that the pro
creding before the Interstate Com
4 n,crce Commission involved two qurs'
tons that were not sought to be It'll
gated In the nlandamus proceeding
that IS, II was alleged sinathe proceed
! ms before the Interstate Commerce
Commission that there was tnadequat'
/. supply Of car service and also tina
!. there was an UNEQUAL distribution Q
!, car service as between the appellant
on the Connellsville division. and tn