The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-03-03
CONTINUED from Pass +,

M me words preference, therein used and discrimination
used atov be synonymous used by the
see ao 70 Harp Chocia5o O. s. G. r. Co. 6I C. c. A. 4os
Y h consideration Of this Circuit Judge Tye who prepared
the opinion, says:
THE conveyed by the word sefence that as between
two persons occupying the same situation relation to the carrier
one has been preferred over the other granted certain privileges
or facilities that not extended to The other
And seems to be rule which has received the almost uniform
sanction Of the courts that unjust discrimination preference
arise by difference service convenience supplied parties in
dlssmar situations who competition with each other
Section I27 Drner Interstate Commerce Red Rok FaeI
vs. Baltimore q Ohio r. r. Co., Int C. c. Rep 43S Fred G.
las Co u.s. LaFe Shore s Michigan Southern Ry Co. Ct a
G. c Rep 55S Castle Baltimore s. Ohio r. r Co., IT, c. c.
ke 333 Missouri Pacific Ry Co. rs Larabee Flour Mills Co.,
The relied on by counsel for defendant are not conflict
but IN harmony witt the doctrine Of the foregoing authorities far
they applicable The disnc1ne draw between them
the case at bar may be noted follows:
In the Of Chicago Rock Island Paac Ry Co. u.s. State
a SUPRA tie not disclose that after the
allowance by the railroad company Of the industries
on its right OF with side track facilities after request denied
&c complainans therein engaged in the industry the
In the Of ln Venon Milling Co. Us hioago Miooutcc
s. PdM ~ Co. supra complainant requested of defendant per-
mission to put its mill side track alongside % whch located
several coal boscs grain houses wsteoses stc ougng
mills This application nncd and urc ,iirncc IA
that case that the compYaasn As& any apPpaon galway
company for ocata e@ G ELEVATOR g,c defendant: ricio
along the side sHnAs hA altar he rordeu ll tc
Coh+Aa 8 20 KS elevator a;acf42 isco al1 o9l ss oWn
&oea arl aiicrwSfr applied n lc 'eiefaal la!l M 8at
q the MG ani elesag lc defendants COS. Te saiSag cou
pa ef ge % con&r aFacS al c cagse complainant Syhsci
oer was used SN3 s bearing ol gc saae sa:sGs gh IgsN
sa Comic Commission cmcd hs E!ioa ASST sgasained lr
csmr2ry IN its ccNeegtt1r.
The % N 9~VI Picijt Rv fD sv Sa. ~ Nsbra,S .e
~ BoeF i,anspot ta.e ~r:t il tEc sar nf
Ncbra 5cn f1ot and o;er, rcqs.esscd tc girlM
end pr erecting tyyaior upcr M ssoul III tie railway
company station aR EmMtn for qlr gssc ni ssor;. from
time time fe cereal sodHgs fas ms caseoI IL come
panants, well the prodsrts Of oe: neos farms q
made to appear that there ecvatoss a:eay groL
engaged in the business of buying alni shipping gan that station
Under such showing the boGd Of Transportation oF 'hc STATE o
company like and conditions as efe granted the owners II
the other two elevators the right arc a;yegs Of erecting elevator
W Its ground at said station adjacent ad respondents side
track or some other point suitable M order affirmed b chs
Supreme Court Of the United States thar deciding solely tc
and within The rule whh have fd this case hed *
follows
TO require the railroad comemy grant 20 the petitioners
location its ghofway S9 the erection of an elevator of Che
specified purpose Ct storing from Bh gran Che petit
TONERS and Of negborng farmers compel the railroad
pany against its will III tse ia part of the iand which
and holds under its charter IS private property and FOR
public to association o fsvar individuals o purpose
of erecting and ms mntanng building thereon for storing Grain for
their benefit without Fying any control Of the
land Of the building erected thereon railroad com
pany for the accommodated e Business. for the
renee Of the public This court confning Itself 80 what necessary
for the decision OF the horc it. unanimously OF opinion chat
the order in question fsT required the railroad corporation
surrender part of its ani the petitioners purpose OF
building and maintaining lei elevator upon it. in and
effect taking OF pva property OF the railroad coporaon for
the private use Of the petitioners
It will thus be seem that ic foregoing either
point or not out Of laHmcsy With the conclusion wic
come while fact the Ma Vernon really supports and
Nebraska case simply held under It's facts that the railway company
would not be required .e part its property parties desr
Gus Of storing grain its right way when was not granting
any such privilege to any others.
The rule that common carriers and other public corpora
tons must treat all who apply or with uniform mparta
and abstain from unjust discrimination apd orcfercnt ,scopnzd
and declared by courts wiou number and often has
before them This rule dependent for its lie force on
written constitutions statutes although vazed in this
State but it he common law u is Of uniform application wherever
it exists Richmond Natne Gas Co. CcsoN 90 Ind tso 81 L.
r. a. 744 Missouri Pacific n.y. Co Lafdbgc Flour Mis Co.,
supra Harp Choctaa O G. KY Co. IlS Fed 200; Harp u.s.
Choap Q. 9 Ry Co. OF O. q. ~ loS Chicago s. fhon r. r.
e. u.s. SAjer a. I2o Yl 7t P'acoai ROioei Co. 40 III.
55 Wes q al s London s ~ w Nv Co. L. X C. P. 622;
Elliott Railroads. Sec 1903 srncu The Fortccnh ADeud-
,uen 1873 FdoeH Farmers WsrshoSc as MINNEAPOLIS ST.
SS. S M Ry Co., IS MINI 60 ~ w eS Gordon Ferguson
ps Dotau q al 100 Mimi 343 5IV W. s7; CGse Baltimore
s. Ohio r. r. Co.. 81 c. c. Rep 3sS
But there things public scs corporation rail-
way company may lawfully do that may bssan feom doing and
Il docs sustain then be eqdrsd compelled under
ordinary circumstances perform hem pva czcn conducting
his business in lawful way may whom he wishes and just as
wills he may sell and refuse Others may thus serve some
and deny his service to others and he may make his offering
Unequal his caprice may choose and in the exercise Of these rights
he iawnoecs him But the business contacted ~ saiav COM
2aayIasa common carrier enjoys nch by 20 contact gen