U S v. UNION PAC R CO(1914)
Former Attorney General Wickersham, Assistant to the Attorney General Fowler, and Mr. Blackburn Esterline for the United States on original argument.
Mr. Patrick J. Farrell for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. F. C. Dillard, Robert Dunlap, E. C. Lindley, Maxwell Evarts, Gardiner Lathrop, Charles W. Bunn, and Charles Donnelly for appellees. [234 U.S. 495, 496] Messrs. Stephen A. Foster, William E. Lamb, Rush C. Butler, and Cornelius Lynde for appellant, the Chicago Association of Commerce.
Messrs. H. M. Stephens and J. B. Campbell for appellants the City of Spokane et al.
Messrs. Joseph N. Teal and Wirt Minor for interveners, the Portland Chamber of Commerce et al.
Former Attorney General Wickersham, Assistant to the Attorney General Fowler, and Mr. Blackburn Esterline for the United States on reargument.
Mr. P. J. Farrell for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. Rush C. Butler, William E. Lamb, Stephen A. Foster, and Cornelius Lynde for appellant the Chicago Association of Commerce.
Mr. Joseph N. Teal for interveners, the Portland Chamber of Commerce et al.
Mr. J. B. Campbell for appellants the City of Spokane et al.
Mr. F. C. Dillard for appellees.
Mr. Alfred P. Thom as amicus curioe.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
The eleven carriers who are appellees on this record filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission applications to be relieved from the long and short haul clause of 4 of the act to regulate commerce [24 Stat. at L. 380, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3155], as amended by the act of June 18, 1910, chap. 309, 36 Stat. at L. 547, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288. After full hearing the Commission entered an order granting in certain respects the relief prayed, but establishing a proportionate relation to be maintained between the lower rate for the longer haul and the higher rate for the shorter haul upon the basis of percentages which were fixed with reference to defined zones. The carriers refused to obey the order, and filed their bill in the commerce court to enjoin its enforcement. An interlocutory injunction was ordered. The defendants moved to dismiss, and, on the overruling of the motions, appealed from the interlocutory order, that case being No. 137. Subsequently, upon the election of the defendants not to plead further, a final decree was entered and appealed from, that appeal being No. 163.
These cases are governed by the opinion in Nos. 136 [234 U.S. 495, 497] and 162, just decided [ 234 U.S. 476 , 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 986]. They were tried in the court below with the other cases, were decided by the same opinion, and, although different localities are involved, the questions presented are identical, and for the reasons given in the other cases, Nos. 136 and 162, the decree must be reversed and remanded to the proper district court with directions to dismiss the bill for want of equity.