The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1911-10-12
SUPREME COURT
HAS BIG DOCKET
JUSTICE RESUMES WORK WITH
-781 ACTIONS AWAITING
DECISION.
MINNESOTA RATE CASE IS UP
Committee of Governors Will Appear
in Behalf Of the State-lmpor.
tant Antitrust Cases to
Be Heard.

Washington. Oct. when the sa
preme Court convenes Monday after
Its summer vacation it was confronted
by an exceptionally heavy docket, con.
sisting of 7S1 actions, as compared
with COG year ago. Transportation
rates will be the principal questions
that the court will have to decide and
although the cases are by no means
so important as the Standard Oil and
tobacco trust suits, the decisions are
eagerly awaited by the railroad inter.
ests throughout the country.
| Perhaps the most important of these
suits is the Minnesota rate case, in
which Judge Sanborn of the United
States circuit court held that the state
had no right to regulate rates within
its borders. This decision was based
on the theory that interstate corn.
merce might be affected by such &C.
ton. During the recent conference of
governors at Spring Lake, N. j., the
attention of the entire country was
called to the matter by the speech o<
d,
tackled Judge Sanborn's decision and
said that the federal courts were tres
passing on the rights of the states. A
committee headed by Governor Har-
mon of Ohio was appointed to appear
in the supreme court on behalf of the
state.
important Antitrust Cases.
Next come several antitrust cases
whose hearing has been held up pend.
ing the tobacco and Standard Oil de-
cisions. THESE actions all involve the
Interpretation of the Sherman law,
and the decisions rendered are ex-
pected to mark definitely the bounds
Of the trust decisions of last spring.
The clerk of the court has announced
that this litigation has been advanced
on the court docket. Among these
cases are included the hard coal
case," the cotton corner case" the
est. Louis bridge case" and the "tur-
pentine case"
The hard coal case" constitutes an
attack by the government on the prin-
cipal anthracite coal carrying rail-
roads and coal mine owning compan-
les in Pennsylvania. 1t is alleged that
since 1896 these companies and rail-
roads have been parties to a conspir-
acy and combination to end competi-
ton among themselves in the trans
portation and sale of anthracite coal,
and to prevent the sale of an independ.
ent output in competition to their own.
In the st. Louis bridge case the
government contends that the agree
ments whereby the Terminal Railroad
association of st. Louis acquired the
ownership, control and operation of
the Fades bridge and the merchants
bridge across the Mississippi violate
the Sherman antitrust law. The
United States circnit court for east
ern Missouri dismissed the bill.
Cotton Corner Cases.
Nothing like the cotton corner case
has ever before come before the SUI
preme Court. The government will
ask the Supreme Court to override tho
action of the United States circuit
court for southern New York in strik-
ing out an indictment against James
A. Patten, Eugene G. Scales, Frank B.
Hayne and William p. Brown. Three
counts charged that these men con-
spired to monopolize the Interstate
trade and commerce in available cot
ton by acquiring enough of that COM
modify on the New York cotton eX-
change to give the alleged conspira-
tors power to fix arbitrary and excess
sive prices.
The decision of the interstate COM
merce commission will claim the at
tention of the court in the so-called
grain elevator cases." There is a
long series of these cases and it is
expected the highest tribunal in the
country will decide the question as to
whether the interstate commerce COM
mission possesses the power to prohib-
it railroads from paying to operators
of elevators compensation for "ele-
waiting grain in transit"
The orders Of the interstate COM
merce commission principally effect
Mississippi river cities, and the boards
of trade of these cities have Joined
with the railroads terminating there
to test the validity of the commissions
action. The United States circuit
court for western Missouri decided
that the commission is without the
power 1t sought to exercise, and the
matter comes before the Supreme
Court on an appeal from this decision.