The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1908-03-23
IMPORTANT EFFECT
Concluded From First Page.)
ipped to the ocean carriers.


shipped to the ocean carriers.
Accordingly" continues Commits.
sioner Lanes opinion 1T has been the
uniform Interpretation of the law that
J an all-water carrier engaged in carry
ing freight originating at New York or
New Orleans may engage in such traf-
| fic between such ports without pub.
fishing its rates with this commission
and so may the steamships plying be
| tween Seattle and San Francisco or
the carrier which transports freight
from Duluth to Chicago on the Great
Lakes or the river carrier from Mem
phis to New Orleans; but if such wat
| err carriers are controlled or managed
| by the same corporation as controls
or manages a rail line, or if between
a rail and water line there Is an ar.
rangement for continuous carriage
then such water line becomes sub.
ject to all the provisions mandatory
and prohibitcry of the act to regulate
commerce.
Can Not Extend This Principle.
THE complainant now asks an ex-
tension of this principle so as to gov.
ern foreign commerce when such traf-
tic is carried by rail to the seaboard
and thence by steamship to European
ports, it being the theory OF the com
| plainanfsc noco fbat hacauoo "a tbrougb
bin of lading is given at the inland
point where the freight is received,
upon which the traffic moves to the
point Of foreign destination, that all
| the carriers participating in such
through bill of lading are parties to an
arrangement for continuous carriage
and therefore that such transportation
and the carriers therein engaged are
subject to all the regulatiye provisions
OF the law and are necessarily as com
pletely under Federal control as i'll
they We're rail or water carriers with
in the United Sta-es engaged in in.
terstate business.
The jurisdiction of this Commits
sion is not to be determined by any
thing other than the language of sec
ton | OF the act, and in this section
we find clear distinction drawn as
between interstate commerce and for
eign commerce to country not ada
cent to the United States; and this
distinction, in our opinion, saves such
foreign commerce from the effect of
that provision of the section as to con |
tinuous carriage beyond the American
seaboard.
For the reasons given the demurrer |
will be sustained and the petition dis |
missed. The position here taken, how |
ever, does not conclude the Commits
sion against an examination into the |
relation which exists between the rail |
carriers and condemnation of such ar
rangement if the rail carriers to the |
seaboard are by any means whatso-
ever, or because of any reason advaI.
tageous TO them and disadvantageous
to the general public, disobeying any
provision of the act to regulate COM
comply with its every requirement.
The Cosmopolitan Shipping Company
may bring before the Commission the
rail carriers engaged in the trans.
portation OF such foreign commerce to
and from ports of trans-shipment and
subject them to investigation as to
their methods of handling such bust
ness and the reasons therefor II T.
is found that there Is discrimination
as between shipping points or points
Of trans-shipment in the United States
on the part of these rail carriers, ii is
within the function of the Commission
to correct such wrong.
The Commission. not having been
given control over the ocean carriers.
can not compel observance of the law
by such carriers, and If they 50 choose
they may alter their rates at such
times as they please or for such pa.
irons as they please Therefore the
line must be drawn decisiyely between
those carriers whose rates and prac
ices this Commission can control and
those which 1t can not control; and
lpon this line of reasoning it has been
the consistent ruling OF the commits
sion that Joint rates can not be made
between carriers subject To the act
and those net subject to the act.