Show THE RAILWAY commission SUSTAINED the NEWS i IN to in receipt of the full text of the important ruling by judge wallace in the united states circuit court of the southern district of now new york which was previously but bried briefly y spoken of in these columns it appears appear that the caw case on hearing was that of the interstate Intent ate commerce commission itself vs the texas and pacific railway company and it wai brought upon a petition by the commission Comm lion for the enforcement of its if order requiring the road to desist from carrying articles arti elea of imported traffic shipped chipped from any foreign port upon through bills of lading to any place in this country at any other rates rate thau than are in vogue on the inland traffic of defendant for the shipment 0 similar traffic the defense of the cm company pany was in part that the southern pacific company was engaged in the same kind of traffic and had not been made A the so action tion concerning which baby act plea the court hold held that it if the defendant is violating a proper order of the commission comm ton 16 4 should be restrained from doing so and it cannot escape upon the objection that another wrongdoer wrong doer is in also violating P it it seems to us at this distance as though it was almost trifling with a court to require it to page upon such a plea but the average railway corporation perhaps looks look upon courts as it does upon everything else elm it uses or to is for a time an AD occupant or user of they are to do de whatever it waste wants done whether things are customary and right or not once let the came got get his head into the window and his body will soon follow the court further hold held that the law creating the commission would to be emasculated in its remedial agency if not practically nullified Aul lifted it a cartler carriee can justify a discrimination in rates merely upon the ground that unless it Is ie given the traffic of the kind and la in the man manner ner apok enof it would go to a oom corn carrier this is ii about of a piece with the other if ifft it to la unlawful to do such carrying why not dot let the other company do it and thus have the latter subjected to the expense and annoyance of a tussle with the couett judge wallace says on this point A shipper chipper having a choice between competing carriers would only have to refuse to send his hia one of them un lose less given exceptional rates to justify J that one in I 1 making the discrimination in his favor on the ground of the necessity of the alL situation pl he then granted ranted the order prayed for by the V commission the government undertook a pretty heavy task when it vicariously essayed the regulation of railway traffic in this country but it can scarcely be charged that it or its agents have used either their conferred or inherent powers harshly har ably arbitrarily or in such manner as to all at once overturn longtime long time conditions and thus precipitate disaster the power that has ha been exercised has been baen in the line of reason and has aimed at securing equity for the roads and their patrons we are still in needom need of some little regulation in utah and the signs of the times point to securing icat no distant day meantime or at any time we have no fight with or opposition to the railways let coelar have all that is his bis and no more is the proper arrangement |