Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-12-09


United States VS.. the several uctend-
ants Sharp was not a party TO II IN
any way. The judgments we're not In
favor OF Sharp but of the I /ted states
and were fines imposed as penalties TOT
q violation OF the federal statute. ac-
cording to the finding of the jury. and
consisted of separate fines OF $4,000
against each of the defendant COM
panles. ind j. NJ. Moore and $l,000
against Buckingham.
Your entire statement OF the facts
with reference to the storage rate Is
inexact in detail The facts, as you
state. that the railroads made stor-
age rate for hauling, which provided
for reduction of so cents per ton on
the part OF the railroads, and that In
return for this concession the dealers
agreed not to raise the price, are not
In accordance with the real facts. The
facts were, that the Union Pacific Coal
company. and all the other coal COM
panies, agreed to reduce the price of
coal at the mine 25 cents per ton. dur
Ing certain period of the summer
season. upon all coal that should re-
main In storage at the end of that
period, and the railroads at the same
time agreed that during that period
and upon all coal remaining In storage
they would reduce the rate for carriage
2b cents per ton. There was no counter
agreement OF coal dealers that they
would not raise the price, The whole
purpose of the coal mining companies
and the carrier companies was to en-
deavor to induce supplies OF coal to
be laid in by dealers and consumers
during the summer months and avoid a
recurrence of shortage that had oc-
Cured the previous winter. The re-
duction WAS to be made by refund
of 20 cents per ton from the coal COM
panles and 25 cents per ton from the
m, a. 10 10 al rno ~
remained in storage at the end of
the agreed period A tariff to this ef-
feet was published by the railroad
companies.
You state In your editorial that
when Sharp advertised the reduced
rates the railroads failed to haul any
more coal for Sharp, implying that
the railroads refused to haul coal
There is not a word of testimony to
that effect in the case. Moore of his
own individual action, as agent of the
coal company. and in advance of any
communication with any official of the
railroad companies, refused to sell
Sharp further coal and he had been
furnishing Sharp his entire supply ac-
cording to the evidence. 1t followed,
necessarily, that II no coal was sold to
Sharp or billed to him there would be
none to haul But your assumption of
the fact that the railroads refused to
haul the coal. and thereby Sharp was
forced out of business, is further
commented upon In your editorial as
follows:
Nevertheless, the report of the case
shows that not only did the local Union
Pacific Coal company refuse to sell coal
to Sharp, which a local company has
perfect right to do but that the
Union Pacific Railway company re-
fused to haul Sharp's coal-a refusal
@Eaf
in general, no right to make 1t Is lust
here that we suppose the published
summary of the case Is misleading
Otherwise, we cannot see how a pub
lie service carrier, In this case the
railroad company, could lawfully re-
fuse to do the thing 1t Is chartered for
under the law-to haul the freight duly
and properly offered for transporta-
tlon'
Your comment with reference to the
duty of railroad in this connection.
is In accordance with the unuuestioned
rule of law and the obligation which
their creation imposes upon them. and
would have been entirely justified II
the fact upon which you base 1t had ex-
listed. namely THAT the Union Pacific
Railway company refused to haul
Sharp's coal" Sharp himself didn't tcs-
tify to any such thing in the case; and
III
feet that the railroads. under the direc-
ton of Bancroft and Buckingham,
hauled whatever freight was offered
them; they had nothing to do with the
question as to whose freight 1t was and
their only concern was In moving the
freight that was offered them.
or course, ] do not know who fur
nished these alleged facts. but you were
grlevously mlsled as to the
fnt t,tI al 30 70.
your comments proceeded. The record
of appeal, and which was before Jus
tce Sanborn and his associates of the
circuit court of appeals, contained a
printed record of all the testimony in
the case. together with the charge OF
Judge Marshall to the Jury. 1t was
from this source that that court derived
its knowledge of the case. and not from
any of the rumors and incorporate
that characterized too often
the method with which questions of
this kind are dealt with by the public
and the public misled by the erroneous
statements set forth In the daily news
papers, Looking at the facts from the
printed record, and applying the legal
principles involved. the opinion of the
circuit court Of appeals, l think. may
be confidently relied upon as fairly
the essential facts shown
In the record. and, of course, until over
ruled by still higher court. we must
have correctly laid down the
several propositions enunciated by |
them. being supported by numerous
cases cited In the opinion
believing that you have no disposition |
to deal otherwise than fairly with this |
case, assume you will be gratified to
be set right upon the material facts as |
to which you were in error at the time |
the editorial referred to was written. |
and with this view only write you this
note and enclose for your information, |
II you are Interested in reading 1t. |
typewritten copy of the opinion of the |
circuit court of appeals.
Very truly yours,
"P. l.. WILLIAMS"