The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1908-03-26
Important Cave Decided by ,hc
Interstate Comrnission
,AsSor /: STOP POOLING
CANNOT PREVENT POOLING
ffs1ssissnfss Lsass Declares 20 81
0vfsAes ~ ygsas1seiioa-- Dstngstsf
~ Bette Peos svsissnss sno
Cewpisins Osssm.ssea

ws.ssnFisa. naish y A aesi,sa
aas l3sn arrnni ssins y 'hf Interstate
reGm.fss csssnlinsiou ~ v hot Ff,'lasi,i
10 tAe ssess ImI.agiFni eas~ uhioa a.
sens.issiou Tor = leng ilsse has l.sen
e2aed uisaa a. delefmlns
u 10 that u ibc C,smoIoiiiaa ship
plns oaDpsns. 4 rbiiadeipsis organ
nation cberirfcd under lhr iHusof Nrw
isrsey against lbe Hamburg AmsFieau
rHss~i sonpany. ths North German
iie1d siesfnshig oompshy She Wilson
dinlji iiBcs and the Scandinavian.
asD.ftrsn iis.r
The eamplsinsnts petition was ;ile,i
via tie commission nesfly year ago
ss,nss lims subsequent, he defendants
nied demurrer attacking he lnfissiic
tion ~ tse Interstate commerce eeni,
lnlseion.
~ effect. ihr commission decides
sshiasl Itself 1, holds that Il has DO
suihayily over occanic transportation
aud thus determines the case adversely
10 ihs contention ~ The complainant
IN This ease the complainant allesed
that the defendant steamship com
psnies transport tFafiic nnder through
bills 81 ladlng betHcoa Inland points o.
The United States and foreign ports, and
are thereby subjecl 10 the Jurisdiction
AZ The commission that the defendants
have made an arrangement for the pool
Ing OF bound export traffic moving
By rail 10 Atlantic ports, sud thence by
steamship liiios TO points IN Europe
The prayer Of The petition Is that the
commission declare ID. so-calIed "Bal.
tic pool TO be- m Illegal pooling Of
freIgbts under the Interstate com
mefce nct. that the monopoly " the
Hamburg American Packet company he
declared unlawful, and that relief be
granted 10 the complainant. which also
IL q transatlantic steamship company
doing freight business between Amer
team aud continental ports
The commission sustnlns ,he demur
ter and directs IN al order that the com.
plaint be dismissed.
IN bis discussion OF the reasons for 4
the commissions action Ia this Inn
poriAnt proceeding Commissioner Lane t.
sets on, these conclusions.
The commission may regulate inter. /
siste traffic. whether BY rain or by q
combined raIl-aud water route. from /
point o. receipt 10 point Of delivery; but
the commission Ia It's control over for.
sign commerce Ii limited 10 the regula
lion o. such traiiic. whether by railroad
or by a combination Of rail aud water
carriers. FROM and 10 the point Of trans.
shipment
The act provides DO machinery by
which Its provisions can be enforced rs
10 Trans Atlantic steamship mes; that
absence OF such provision eau be ex-
plalned Gully by accepting the inter
probation that the commission has no
Jurisdiction ia the premises
THE pooling Of trafiic by water car.
rIers IL plainly a matter over which this
commission hiss DO Jurisdiction
"A rail carrier may control, and con.
acct with. line Of steamships engaged
Ia foreign commerce, with which II may
business as freely as with
another rail carrier, and 1, uay iIoie
combined rate for the through move
ncnt. the agent Of the railroad company
acting as the agent OF the steamship
sompsny in so doing
In eject, through these conclusions,
the commission decides that II has no
power TO restrain. control or regulate
Ne practices OF the trans Atlantic
steamship lines which appear as de
fenssnts 10 this case.