The San Francisco call., 1910-11-24
RAILROADS LOSE
fight AGAINST
RATE DECISION
Circuit Court Refuses to Grant
Order Restraining New In
termonntain Schedule
Judges Riddle Corporations
Arguments in Denying
Them an Injunction

T The interstate commerce commission
scored victory yesterday in its con-
tinuous battle with the railroads wher
/ the United States circuit court refused
to grant the Southern Pacific and &c
other lines an injunction restraining
the commission fro menforcing the in
termountain rates, which were estab-
lished last June.
AS result Of yesterdays decision il
is obligatory upon the railroads to
publish tomorrow their schedules OF
rates to and from points between the
Atlantic seaboard. to Reno and other
points in Nevada, and to Phoenix, Ariz
The new rates viii go into effect De-
I cember /.
INJUNCTION MAY ISSUE LATER
The circuit court has referred the
matter of whether an injunction should
Harry NJ. Wright to take testimony in
regard to the rates. which afterward
will be resubmitted to the circuit court
for final decision.
Assistant United States Attorney
General William e. Lamb, who is rep
resenting the interstate commerce com
mission, will hold q conference with
the railroads lawyer, c. w. Durbrow,
with view to suspending the proceed
ings until the recently created court
OF commerce is IN a position to hear the
case. Otherwise the case will be con-
tinued in the circuit court.
The following is the decision read
by the presiding Justice, William B.
Gilbert, of the circuit court and con-
CURED in by Justices William w. Nor
row and Ersktne NJ. Ross:
In this matter, which has been
before the court, we have given the
questions involved careful cOnSid-
Grafton. They have been exhaust
lively and ably presented on both
sides. The case comes here from
the decision of the interstate com
merce commission. 1t is not denied
that the commission had juriSdic-
ton and that it heard the case. The
presumption must be that that
hearing covered all questions that
were involved and that the con-
clusion of the commission must be
sustained as reasonable.
NOT CONFISCATORY
1t is said in the bills that the
conclusion of the commission must
be set aside on various grounds;
one is that it is violative of the
constitution: that. the rates fixed
are confiscatory; but no facts are
davits from which the court can
say that the rates are confisca-
tory
were fixed arbitrarily; that there
was general readjustment of
rates, comprehensive and radical
change of rates. Every establish
ment of a rate by the interstate
comm commission must be, in a
sense, arbitrary. but If it is arbi-
trary in the sense that it is vio-
lative of the law, or disregards the
equities of the parties, or is an
abuse of discretion, those are
grounds for setting 1t aside But
there are no such grounds in these
bills There is nothing from which
we can infer that the interstate
commerce commission did not con-
slider all of the facts In the case,
and did not act upon full con-
sideration of the questions involved.
The mere fact that the readjust-
ment is comprehensive and radical
is no ground for setting 1t aside;
the situation may have called for
comprehensive reduction.
BLANKETING PROPER
Again it is alleged that the rates
were discriminatory in that they
were blanketed from Sacramento
eastWard.s We are not prepared to
say that it is not within the power
of the interstate commerce COM
mission to blanket rates. 1t is a
recognized practice and the railroad
companies practice blanketing of
rates But we are not convinced in
this case that the order of the
interstate commerce commission
necessarily involves the blanketing
of rates. If the rates esta blished
are subject to that criticism the
railroad companies have in their
power to cure the vice by establish
ing, within the maximum rates es-
tablished by the interstate COM
merce commission, mileage rates.
So that is no ground for setting
aside or enjoining the rates es-
tablished by the interstate COM
merce commission.
Takign the bills as they are they
fail to make a case which would
Justify this court in substituting
its Judgment, If IT had a different
judgment from that of the inter-
state commerce commission, and
enjoining. even temporarily. the
rates which they have established
and the injunction in each case
? will be denied.