The Alaska citizen., 1916-11-27
FREIGHT RATES NOW MATTERS
 OF DISCUSSION
THE CASE IN COURT.

Business interests of Sacramento, Stockton, San Jose and Santa Clara. Cal, and IFS other inland. or SO called intermourtain cities, were affected by questions raised in the Pacific Terminals case. Without equal transcontinental rate privileges with San Francisco and other cities classified by the Interstate Commerce Commission as Pacific terminals. curtailing means to meet competl- ton, the Supreme Court was told much of their business would be ruined
 The government, the commission. and the transcontinental railroads appealed to the Supreme Court from a perpetual injunction granted March 27. 1916 by the Northern California federal district court annulling the commissions orders of January 29 and April 30, 1915, which allowed the railroads to reduce crossconti- mental freight rates to San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Portland, Seat tie and other deep-harbor ocean points in order that the railroads could meet water competition caused by the opening of the Panama Canal. The commission refused to classify Sacramento, Stockton, San Jose and Santa Clara as Pacific terminals, denying them the rate reductions given the ocean terminals. Those cities therefore bore additional rate charges-the back haul" from the terminals.
 In an injunction suit brought by the Merchants & Manufacturers Traf- fife Association of Sacramento, the Traffic Bureau of the San Jose cham Der of commerce, the Stockton Traf- fic Bureau and the city of Santa Clara. the California district court. with Judge Bledsoe dissenting, rul- ed the commission had exceeded it's authority in adjusting the transconti- mental rates and issued perpetual injunction against operation of the orders.
 The court held that in the absence of applications by the railroads for the specific rate changes ordered, the commission was without power to direct them. Upon appeal, how ever, the government contended that such applications had been substan- tially filed and that, under the rul- ing in the intermountain rate case, and the long and short haul clause of the Interstate Commerce Act, the commission had acted within its au- thority It was pointed out that towns not directly situated on the Pacific ocean were, by their inferior geographical position, not subject to the steamship competition of ocean terminals and not entitled to reduced rates given such terminals.
 That IFS other inland or inter- mountain cities might also insist up on Pacific terminal classification de- nied them, was raised by the govern ment and commission before the Su- preme Court, it being set forth that the sole reason for the com missions orders was necessity of ocean terminals to meet transconti- mental transportation conditions changed through the opening of the Panama Canal
 The government and commission also contended that the commissions findings of fact and need for the rate adjustments ordered, were final and conclusive upon the courts, when based on substantial evidence, and that the California courts injunc- ton in effect substituted the judg ment of that court for the com missions as to the traffic condi tions.
 The commercial organizations of Sacramento, Stockton, San Jose and Santa Clara, which contended their business men directly compete with those of San Francisco and Oakland, | argue that the commission had in | fact made" rates and usurped au thorlty given only to regulate" rates.
 The railroads named as defendants in the injunction suit were the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe; Chi cago, Rock Island & Pacific; Den yer & Rio Grande; and the South ern, Union and Western Pacific companies.
 The case was argued last month, before the Supreme Court, having | hoo, cpoc;a)lv advanced uDOn an aD-