The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-01-09

ed. to devote to the public use as a
common carrier, although it contin-
ued to receive and discharge as before
for all others.
An action was brought against the
company in the United States court
and the district judge held that these
facilities were the private property of
the company, which it was not COM
PEELED to devote to the public use for
the usual reward and hire The cir
cult court Of appeals reversed the low
er court, unanimously holding that
these docks were not the private IA
cilities of the company, but that they
were facilities used by the company
as a common carrier, and that under
decision of the supreme court of this
state. the company could not refuse
| to receive the freights rendered, but
! the United States supreme court in
| the very teeth of a number of state
| decisions to the contrary reversed the
circuit court of appeals, and held these
docks and facilities to be the private
property Of the company which it was
not compelled to devote to the public
use.
! This decision placed at the mercy
| of this company, not only the business
| interests of the city of Pensacola, but
the business interests as well of every
shipper by rail of any commodity to be
delivered in the bay or intended for
| trans-shipment through the port. This
company, through subsidiary corpora
| tons, is engaged in the coal business,
and has its agents for the sale of coal
| in other ports. Through a subsidiary
corporation known as the Gulf Transit
Company, it also maintains and oper-
ates a line of steamers between this
port and European ports.
Vessels coaling here, must be coal
! ed at these docks. 1t may say to
dealer in coal whose profits lie largely
| in coaling vessels from coal brought
| in by rail as needed, 81 will bring
| your coal to Pensacola and will de-
liver it to you up town, but 1 will not
deliver it at my private docks" l..
| 1t may say to the shipper of tim
! Der, cotton or naval stores, L will
| bring your timber, cotton or naval
/ stores to Pensacola and deliver it to
! you uptown, but I will not transport
| it over, nor deliver it at my private
DOCKS
1t may say to cotton and timber
brokers in the city, II will deliver to
you uptown any cotton or timber con-
signed to you, but will not transport
| it over, nor deliver it to you at my
| private docks Or it may single on:
any one of these and destroy him by
refusing him, while it receives AMI
| discharges for all others similarly en-
/ gagged, or it may single out one whom
| it wishes to build up and receive and
discharge at these wharves for him,
af1n sir,
| ed, Or it may form subsidiary COR
poration for Tie conduct of all these
/ businesses and refuse all others SINH
larly engaged. A competitor could not
incur the expense of unloading up
town, transporting across the city and
deliver at other wharves and COM
pete with one receiving and delivering
from the docks directly from cars.
! This company may refuse to receive
or deliver from these docks to any
| line of steamers other than its own
thereby preventing any competing line
| from entering this port.
! 1t is true the company Is not now
exercising all these arbitrary powers,
but it has not hesitated to do so when
/ it was to its interest so to do. In this
way it could, not only destroy this city
but it could ruin every mill operator
who cuts lumber for export through
this port, and who is dependent upon
railroad transportation.
| Such conditions are calculated to
make moral towards of men who real
ize that the success or failure of their
business interests depends upon their
/ attitude toward the company. 1t even
makes litigants fear men so circum-
stanced as jurors in important cases
where the company is a party.
| If this company were deprived of
the right which it now enjoys under
a federal statute from removing an
action against it to federal court,
where it could avail itself of the
United States supreme court decision
referred to, but were confined, like a
citizen of the state to the state courts,
it is highly probable that the supreme
court of this state in some action
brought by some other Individual
would follow the general doctrine laid
down by state decisions. Pensacola,
and shippers through the port, in this
way would be freed from the grasp
of this company.
Although the federal courts have
held these expensive and necessary
docks and facilities to be the private
property of the company, not devoted
to the public use, a federal court since
this holding, has granted an Injunction
against the railroad commissioners OF
this state, restraining them from en-
forcing a rule to reduce passenger
rates upon a division of this COM
pany's line, upon the ground that if
the reduction in rates is made as pro-
posed, the company could not earn
operating expenses and make a profit
on its investment. Here it served the
purpose Of the company to show heavy
operating expenses, and we are told
that all the very heavy expenses of
constructing and maintaining these
private docks and facilities are charg-
ed by the company to one particular
division of its line instead Of appor-
tioning this expense over its various
divisions. But if these docks and ia
cilities are entirely private, and not
used as a part Of these divisions and
as public facilities, why charge up the
expense as a part of its public facili-
ties.
A judge of an inferior. federal court
has held that the receivers of rail.