Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1914-06-08
Interstate Commission Up
holds Position of Louis
lana State Body.
SHOW DISCRIMINATION
Trade Wall Erected Around
Texas and Outsiders Not
Permitted to Enter Field.

Washington, D. c., June S.-The SUI
preme court today upheld the inter
state commerce commissions decision
in the Shreveport rate cases, thus
placing interstate railroads more I'M
der the commission and less under
state commissions.
The fight for better rates for
Shreveport jobbers into Texas prom
ised from the start to establish a pre-
cedent governing the future trade OF
cities along state boundaries. So i'm
portant was the matter deemed to be
that the Louisiana railroad commits
sion itself initiated the contest before
the interstate commerce commission
| in behalf of the jobbers along the
Louisiana-Texas border.
The Louisiana commission COM
planned to the interstate commerce
commission in March. 1911, that the
class rates charged by the railroads
for transportation in a westerly direc-
ton from Shreveport to points in
Texas were unjustly discriminatory in
that they were much greater than the
rates contemporaneously charged for
the transportation of like traffic from
Dallas and Houston, in Texas, to the |
same points. They complained, in |
substance, that a trade wall had been |
erected around Texas and that out |
side jobbers were not permitted to |
enter into the enclosed field.
Discrimination Not Denied
The Houston, East and West Texas
Railway company and the Texas & Pa
cific Railway company did not deny
the discrimination, but answered that
the Shreveport rates were reasonable
in themselves, and that the Texas
rates we're not voluntary but were
prescribed by the Texas railroad COM
mission. The interstate commerce
issued an. order, holding
that an unjust discrimination exist
ed and directed the railways either to
lower the interstate rates from
to Texas points or to in
crease the Texas rates from Dallas
and Houston to other Texas points. so
as to remove this discrimination. The
vainly endeavored to induce
the commerce court to enjoin the en-
'orcement of this order.
Oho vi AhC AhCApai POAhlS VI COh-
-ention in the case was whether this c
vas voluntary or an involuntary dis
by the railways against I
The railways contended G
hat it was involuntary because they f
we're directed by the Texas railroad b
TO put into force the low
Texas rates v
Liable Under Texas Law. e
For each higher rate charged. the
contended they would be
liable under Texas law for a $4,000 :
,enaIty to the state, and from $125 to
500 to the shipper. In addition fine
4 $1,000 might be forthcoming for
ailing to obey an order of the state
abroad commission.
The government on the other hand
ontended that the Texas rates were n
because the railways had
OF appealed to any court or commits -
ion to have the Texas rates set aside. o'
Another contention was whether u
le interstate commerce laws were so OF
RATED as to confer upon the commits d,
ion Jurisdiction over interstate rates 70
lat might affect interstate rates. W
Penalties Set Aside. e'
The supreme court set aside penal s.
es imposed by various Kentucky OF
ounties upon the International Har- 81
ester company of America as being
member OF trust" U
The supreme court upheld the inter II
ate commerce commissions order
railroads to discriminate
sainst Los Angeles by charging for
slivery of cars on industrial tracks
ere. The decision applies also TO
an Francisco and about 1000 other
ties having similar free service. de