The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-03-23
NO AUTHORITY OVER
OCEAN TRANSPORTATION
Without Jurisdiction Over
Pooling Of Traffic BY
Water Carriers

(By Associated Press.D
Washington D. c.. March ga
decision was promulgated today by
the Interstate Commerce commits
sion In what probably is tie most
important case which the commission
for long time has been called upon
20 determine il Is thai OF the Cos
lmopolltan Shipping company. q Phil
adelphia organization chartered undar
the laws Of New Jersey, against the
Hamburg.American Packet company:
the North German Lloyd SteamsIip
company; the Wilson ti5niD lines
the Seandinavian-Ameri }asSs
The cOmplainants petition was flied
with the commission nearly year
ago Some time subsequently, this dt
PENDANTS hled demurrer. attacking
the iurisdiC ion OF the Interstate
Cohhuerca consslon. Oral afgu
ments on the demurrer We're heard
by the commissions Ward W. PiersOn
appearing for the Cosmopolitan com
pany and former Senator John g.
Spooner, Judge William G. ChOat6I
land Harrington Putnam for the de-
PENDANTS The oral arguments were
followed by extensive briefs which
the commission has had under con.
sideration for aeyeral weeks
The opinion IN the case. which is
ycfy vnluminous was prepared by
Commissioner Franklin II. Lane II
Is an exhaustive discussion of the
lucid statement OF the conclusions
of the commi sion.
The decision is peculiarly import
ant not only because il affects large
interests which hitherto have not
been brought before a judicial tribu
nal OF this country but BECAUSE e
affects materially the powers of the
Interstate Commerce commi. sion. II
holds that Il has ho authority over
oceanic transportation and thus deter.
mines the case adversely to the con-
tentiOn of the complainant
ln this case the complainant alleged
that the defendant steamship com
panies transport traffic under
through bills OF ading between in
land point OF the United States aud
foreign ports and are thereby sub
iect to the jurisdiction Of the com.
mission; that the defendants have
made an arrangement for the pool
ing Of east bound export traffic NOV
ing by rail 10 Atlantic ports and
thence by steamship lines to points
IN Denmark. Sweden Norway. Fin.
land aud German points on the Bal
tic. that this so-called Baltic pool"
arbitrarily determine the ultimate
rates from such inland points OF the
United States 70 such foreign ports
via. North Siianuc ports; and that
the llurHi4fItst- A
pany maintains a monopoly OF west
bound and eastbound traffic for
Warded on local and and on through
bills OF lading between Germany and
other continental countries aud in
land cities of the United States The
prayer Of The petition Is that the
commits ion declare the Baltic pool
10 be an Illegal pooling ot freights
under the Interstate Commerce act.
thm the monopoly of the Hamburg
American Packet company be de-
elared unlawful and that relief be
granted TO lhs complainant which
also IS a transatlantic steamship
coming doing freight business be
tween American and continental
ports
TO this complaint the defendants
demufrd. on the ground. first, that
the commission has 40 Jurisdiction 81
the subject matter or power ia pro
coed against the defendant and. Sec
ondy that the complaint sets forth
uo matter which IS eoeni1able by the
commission or which it has been
givon authority to remedy
The commission siistains the de-
murrer and directs IN an order that |
the coiBplalnt be dismissed.
in bis discussion OF the reasons for
the commissions action Ia this i'm
poriant proceeding Commissioner
Lane sets ont these conclusions.
This commission has no iurlsdic- |
tion as iO shipments moving from
ports of the United States 10 a ion
eign country not adjacent when such
shipments are not carried by rail or
by rail and water fsom an Inland |
point oi origin TO "a port or transsni,,
meht An inland movement of iNpori |
or rapport traffic ls a condition pre- |
eedent 10 The attaching of mrisdic
tion
"fhe jurisdiction Of this commits
sion is not 10 be detcrmined by any
other than the language Of section
OF the act, and in this lection is /
found a clear distinction drawn be-
tween Interstate commerce and for
eien commerce. to q country not al
iacent 20 the United States. aud this |
distinction saves such foreign com
merce from the effect Of that provis.
ion Of the section as 10 continuous
carriage bfyond the Ameieau sea
boarl
fi'e commission mai Regulate in. |
terefaie tfalile whether hy gali OBJ h,
a comblned rain andwaler route. nom !