Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-06
ALASKACASE RULING
Justice Barnard Upholds Inter-
state Commerce Body.
MANDAMUS is REFUSED
Petition of Humboldt Steamship
Company Is Dismissed.
APPEAL LIKELY TO BE TAKEN
Court Holds That Both Requisites
for Issuance of a Writ
Are Absent.
MANDAMUS IS REFUSED
APPEAL LIKELY TO BE TAKEN

! While maintaining the right of the SUI
preme Court OF the District of Columbia
| in proper case to grant mandamus
against the interstate commerce commits
sin, Justice Barnard of the District SUI
preme Court today refused to compel the
commission to take jurisdiction over the
common carriers of Alaska.
| He accordingly dismissed the petition
of the Humboldt Steamship Company OF
California, which sought mandamus
when the interstate commerce commits
sion, last June in A majorily/report,
three commissioners dissenting. declined
| to take jurisdiction and to require the
| Alaskan roads to file schedules OF rates
An appeal probably will be taken by
the petitioner to the Court of Appeals,
and if Justice Barnard is sustained there
will seek IL final determination In Inc
Supreme Court of the United states. a
statement is on file In the case that the
money interests involved are in excess
of 5000
The court holds that tho case at bar Is
not one calling for the exercise or the
extraordinary power of the court by way
of mandamus. Such a writ should ISSUE
suggests Justice Barnard, only when the
party applying has q clear legal right TO
the relief he claims, which he cannot
obtain by any other proceeding.
He must not only have clear legal
right but there must be clear iegal
duty on the part of the respondent which
he refuses TO perform. and that duty
must be ministerial in it's character and
I'm no degree discretionary. Both these
requisites for the issuance OF a manda-
tory writ are absent, the court finds, IN
the present case, which has come to be
known as the Alaskan rate case.
Thinks Legal Duty Not Clear.
"Can it be said" remarks the court,
that the legal duty is clear when COM
mission composed of seven gentlemen
well versed In the law are divided in
opinion as to that duty, four to three?
And il the realtors right depends on the
construction of the law. about which
there is such difference Of opinion among
Judges can ii be said that he has
clear right to the relief demanded? l
have no doubt that this court has juris-
dictiOn to grant the writ of mandamuS
against the interstate commerce commits
sion, provided the case made is sufficient
ly clear.
1.-THE relator has no other remedy, and
If the case were plain the court would
not hesitate to issue the writ as prayed,
but where there is any reasonable doubt
of the existence of the essential cOndi-
tions above stated the court should de-
cline to issue the writ
The report of the commission consisted
of a majority finding written by Com
missioner Harlan and dissenting opin-
ion by Commissioner Clements, concurred
in by Commissioners COckrell and Lane.
In the majority opinion the commission
held that Alaska is not territory of the
United States in the sense in which that
phrase is used in the act to regulate
commerce, as amended, and therefore
held the commission has no authority or
jurisdiction over carriers operating in
Alaska.
Jurisdiction of Commission.
Justice Barnard, in his opinion, makes
it clear that he stands with the minority
on the question Of the jurisdiction of the
commission when he declares that had
the commission assumed the right to
hear the petition mo one, / think, could
successfully question their right to do
So"
pellate jurisdiction over the commission,
Justice Barnard says, he would feel con-
strained to reverse the decision and to
require the commission to pass upon the
plerits of the controversy therein de-
scribed.
Justice Barnard disposes of the point
made by the majority of the commission
that Jurisdiction over the carriers should
not be taken because the word district
instead of territory" appears in numer-
Gus acts concerning Alaska. My con-
struction Of the acts referred to- nc
says. land my reading of the various
opinions Of the Supreme Court of the
United States in relation thereto, would
incline me to believe that there is moth
ing conclusive in that argument"
Attorneys Charles D. Drayton and John
B. Daish represented the petitioner and
the commission was represented by z. j.
Farrell, its solicitor.