New-York tribune., 1908-03-23
OCEAN TRAFFIC
NOT CONTROLLED.
FAMOUS "B4LTIC POOL
CASE DISMISSED.
Interstate Commerce Commission.
Decides That Its Jurisdiction
Ends at the SeabOdrd.

Commission in what probably Is the most M
portant case the commission has been called on
10 determine for long time IL IS tha' OF 'h-
COSMOPOLITAN Shipping Company, Philadelphia
orpantzation chartered under the laws OF New
Jersey against the Hanburg-American Packet
Company. tn. North German Lloyd Steamship
Company. the Wilson (HulD lines and the
Scandinavian American lines In orlei ana IA
effect the commission decides against itself II
holds that il has authority over ocean trans
portarion. and thus determines the case ao-
verseIv 10 the contention Of the complainant
The decision is peculiarly important not only
because it affects large interests which have not
previously been brought before a judicial trlb-
,naI Of this country but because IL materially
affects the powers of the Interstate Commerce
Commission
The connpIainant's petition was fled with the
commission nearly year ago The defendants
filed a demurrer. attacking the jurisdiction of
the commission. Arguments on the demurrer
were heard Ward W Pierson appearing for the
Cosmopolitan company and ex-senator John &
spooner Judge William c. Choate and Harring-
ton Putnam for the defendants The arguments
were followed by extensive briefs. which the
commission has had under consideration several
The opinion was prepared by Commissioner
franklin Il. Lane II is an exhaustive discus
sion of the Law bearing the case and a lucid
statement Of the conclusions OF the commission
The complainant alleged that the defendant
steamship companies transport traffic under
through bills of Iading between inland points OF
the United States and foreign ports. and are
thereby subject to the jurisdiction of the COM
mission: that the defendants have made an ar
rangenlent for the pooling OF eastbOund export
traffic moving by rail TO Atlantic ports and
thence by steamship lines to points in Denmark
Sweden. Norway. Finland and German points
on the Baltic; that this so-called Baltic pool
arbitrarily determines the ultimate rates from
such inland points of the United states TO sucn
foreign ports ia the North Atlantic ports and
that the Hamburg American Packet Company
maintains a monopoly Of westbound and east
bound traffic forwarded on local and through
bills Of Iading between Germany and other Con-
tnentaI countries and inland cities Of the United
States. The prayer Of the petition IS that the
commission declare the Baltic pool 70 be
Illegal pooling OF freights under the interstats
| commerce act; that the alleged monopoly OF the
| Hamburg american Packet COMPANY be de-
| cIared unlawful and that relief be granted %
| the complainant, which also is transatlantic
steamship company doing freight business be-
tween American and Continental portss
To this complaint the defendants demUrrsd,
on the ground. first, that the commission has no
Jurisdiction Of the subject matter or power 70
proceed against the defendants. and. second.
that the complaint sets forth no matter which
is cognizable by the commission or which it
authority TO remedy.
The commission sustains the demurrer and
directs that the complaint be dismissed
THE COMMISSIONS OPINION
In his discussion OF the reasons for the COM
missions action Commissioner Lane says
This commission has no jurisdiction as -
shipments moving from ports Of the tinted
such shipments are not carried BY rail or by
ran l anu q i9nlent Al inland r77over1e-f ot
export or import traffic is condition precedent
The Jurisdiction OF this commission is not 70
be deterInned 9y any otheg nan "a t4e 4s lscri
is found a clear distinction drawn between in
Country not adjacent to the United States. and
this distinction saves such f@Telsn G r afi1
as TO continuous carriage beyond the American
The commission may. regulate Interstate traff,s.
whether 6y ralI ran, or noi0y f rasipI ~ pafrf ~
delivery. but the commission in its control OYER
Of such traffic. whether by railroad cT by
fomPnasGn e, tPl nont od Of r4r1 tra5sebpsT sp
The act provides no machinery BY Vslg1 i rs
steamship lines: that absence Of Sreh ProyIslGn
probation that the commission has no Jurisdiction
!" TIE nooIinr of traffic bv water carriers .
plainly a matter over which this commission has
A rail carrier may control and connect With
line of steamships engaged In foreign CON- %
as freely as with another rail carrier and q
may quote a combined rate for the through
movement the agent Of the railroad company
acting as the agent Of the steamship company
doing
The act provides that this commission shall
exercise Jurisdiction inland portion
Of the haul. either from tie foreign
country: and IL logically and necessarily
follow that the which must bs filed with TIE
commission under Section OF The act : the rate
governing such movement on foreign com
nlerre the be published with this com
IN should he the rate 70 me port and from
port a rate. which who desire
10 do with equal advantage
This position does commit the COnlnis-
sion against q examination int" -rs relation
which exists between the rail carriers ~ The
United States and the defendant water car
riers and condemnation Of such arrangement
IL tic rail carriers the SHsbOsrd bv any
means whatsoever 6isObeviuc provision -
the act emitting 70 comply with IFS every
requirement
CANNOT RESTRAIN OCEAN TRAFFIC
In effect through these conclusions. tHe COM
mission decides that it has 10 power t. re-
strain. control regulate the practices - ths
+raDsarlauti,. Steamship lines which auvsa~ 4