Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1908-03-23


Interstate commerce commission in
pne of the most important cases it
has been called upon to determine
Tor some time. 1t is that of the Cos
hopolitan Importing company, a
Philadelphia organization, chartered
Under the laws of New Jersey,
gainst the neutrality-suspicious. Pack
It company, the North German Lloyd
steamship company, the Wilson lines
Ind the northumberland lines.
The compliments petition was
lled with the commission nearly a
lear ago. Some time subsequently
he defendants filed demurrer, at
acking the jurisdiction of the inter-
tate commerce commission. The
opinion in the case, which is very
Eoluminous, was prepared by Com
missioner Franklin X. Lane.
In brief, and in effect, the COM
mission decided against itself. 1t
holds that it has no authority over
oceanic transportation and this de-
ermines the case adversely to the
Contention of the complainant.
In this case the complainant al
Dyed that the defendant steamship
ompanies transport traffic under the
pills of lading between inland points
pf the United States and foreign
PORTS, and are thereby subjected to
he jurisdiction of the commission;
that defendants have made an ar
'rangement for the pooling of east
bound export traffic maintained by
rail to Atlantic ports and thence by
steamship lines to points in Den
mark, Sweden Norway, Finland and
German ports in the Baltic, and that
this so-called Baltic pool arbitrari-
ly determines the ultimate rates
from such inland points of the United
States to such foreign ports, the
North Atlantic ports; and that the
Hamburg-American Packet company
maintains a monopoly of westbound
and eastbound traffic forwarded on
local and on through billof lading
between Germany and other conti-
Mental countries and inland cities of
the United 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
Is also transatlantic steamship COM
pany, doing a freight business be-
tween American and continental
ports.
Lane Explains Decision.
In his discussion of reasons for the
commission decision, Mr.. Lane
says:
1.-The commission may regulate in
terstate traffic, whether by rail or by
combined rail and water route. from
point of receipt to point of delivery;
but the commission in its control
Over foreign commerce is limited to
the regulation of such traffic, whether
by rail or by a combination of rail
ind water carriers, from and to the
points of transshipment.
THE pooling of traffic by water
barriers is plainly a matter over
which the commission has no juris-
diction.
"A rail carrier may control. and
connect with line of steamships en-
gagged in foreign commerce with
which it may interchange business as
Freely as with another rail carrier.
md it may quote a combination rate
or the through movement. the
gents of the railroad company act
ng as the agent of the steamship
ompany in SO doing"
Where IL Has Jurisdiction.
Commissioner Lanes opinion con-
inues: 1T has been the uniform in
erpretation of the law that an ALL
Fater carrier engaged in carrying
freight originating In New York or
New Orleans may engage in such
irafiic between such points without
publishing its rates with this COM
mission, and 50 may the steamships
plying between Seattle and San Fran
disco. but II such water carriers are
controlled OF managed by the same
corporation as controls or manages q
rail line. or II between a ran and