Show NO OffiCIAl CAN CUT RATE I i Important Railroad Decision 1 Handed Down by Judge Ritchie in Favor of the Ore Ote OteI Oregon I i gon gOR Short Line Company 4 t 4 H 1 f Holding that the published tariff f 4 rate of 01 a railroad takes precedence 4 o over er any an rate that may be given f ov Jy by an agent Judge II M 1 L Ritchie It t f the district court yesterday f handed down a decision in the thease 4 asp ase of 01 the Oregon Short Line f Railroad company against the f ff f Consolidated Wagon Machine f j I company j in which he lie gives judg 4 ni m ut nt In favor of the railroad f company The suit fluit by he Short Line was w s for tOI Ji 73 8 claimed to be still due on a shipment of ot hay hB for tor the tho Consolidated I company from Spencer to Yel Yellowstone YelI I Mont The TIle agent of the Short Line at Spencer gave the rate of lie per pounds for the ship in mont on t of hay though the printed tariff i i schedule of the Short Line company lp ny called for tor a charge of iVe per oer pounds for tor the haul baul The matter came cameI cameto I i to tu the attention of the Interstate com corn commerce commerCe merce fierce commission at a t Washington Wa Va and andI I instructions were sent b by t e govern I meat to Col H 11 E Il Booth United State States I attorney In Salt Lake to appear for forthe forthe the government I Strenuous Js objection was wall made by b the attorn s 1 for tor the Short Lih against I United States S Attorney Booth appear appearing ing lug for the government but Judge Jude hie allowed him to appear as as counsel with the attorneys for tor forthe the he 1 Consolidated company but not asa asa as asa a representative of the government owing to the peculiarity of the issues The Tho opinion of ot Judge Ritchie in find findIng finding findIng Ing for tor the Short hort Line is a lengthy one Olle in which he reviews the duties dutle of the I Interstate Inter tate commerce commission ruling i of state courts and an opinion pinion by b Justice White of the United States 1 supreme court in which it is ill held that tile the rate given by an agent of a corn com company pany cannot stand in the face of the i printed tariff sheets file with the government Important Principle Involved The aze he amount of money mane sued f tel for r is isn nit n t ok of an gleat ie but the principle Involved was Va the one which caused the fight It was contended by Gedrge GeOrge T Odell for tor the Consolidated Cops company that the rate of or He given ghen by the Short Line agent at Spencer was accepted all ail down the theline theline I IUne line Une among the head officials of the i ic 1 company c in Salt Lake Ike This Judge holds does not bind the rail railroad railroad railroad road as only the rate on the published tariff could be taken Into consideration tion unless it were clearly sh that the interstate commerce laws had been violated i After quoting the opinion of Justice White of the United States supreme court in the case of ot Texas Pacific Railway company versus Abilene Oil company compan Judge Ritchie makes m kes the fol following following I lowing observations For the reasons so aptly stated no DO agent of the company high or low in iii authority can fix a rate by br quoting it to a shipper and can in no way bind the carrier by b any representation ho homay homa homay may ma make Therefore one proposing to ship over the We carriers road is not Justified in III relying upon any mien rep reI representation A given ghen rate is fixed by a carrier by filing with the commission a u ached sched schedule ule showing the rate There is ap apparently apparently parenti no dispute here that when a lawful schedule of rates is filed flIed and published as provided in the act the rate is in force thirty days after the filing On Branch Line The evidence Inthis case shows show that Yellowstone tile destination of f the ship shipments shipments ments in question was on what is nailed called lied liedthe the Yellowstone branch which was wag then in process of construction and ond was not completed Under these circumstances the condition that shipments were to tobe tobe tobe be accepted only at the convenience of the construction department was a rea reasonable reasonable sona hIe one It is conceivable that if it were not the he plaintiff might have been heen over Continued on Page Six NO Na OffiCIAL CAN CUT fREIGHT RATE Continued from Page One whelmed with shipments which if It were compelled to tarry larry would unreasonably unreasonably unreasonably delay or prevent the comple completion completion completion tion of the road at all There was no uncertainty about ab ut the amount to be charged for the shipments In question no uncertainty as to Its application The only uncertainty was whether the con construction construction construction department consistently with properly carrying on the work of con constructing constructing constructing the road and hauling g material g fo for that hat purpose could accept Pt freight from shippers The Te conclusion Is there therefore therefore therefore fore reached that It was beyond the power Jf of C the interstate commerce com corn commerce commerce merce commission to reject a schedule it co commission for th the sole reds reason renson that it contained the clause stated It appearing therefore that the schedule in question was actually re received by the commission and ought to tore have been filed and was improperly ly re rejected rejected by It jt It was v in legal leg legIt am effect filed flIed It is Irrelevant to the issues es to o discuss what would be the effect e of receiving g without formally filing an n unlawful schedule That the e receipt re of unlawful a lawful schedule Imposed upon the commission the duty of filing it and In the tit eye of the law constituted a II tiling filing n is am amply amply amply ply supported by the t authorities Power of Commission If the nature of a II as schedule rh ten tendered tendered ten tendered dered were such that f it required q gd d the determination of the commission as to toUs Its Us character the powers of the dom com commission om mission manifestly man could not be exercised exer exercised by Its secretary much less by a subordinate It is urged by b the defendant that the plaintiff the carrier Is estopped or In some manner precluded from en enforcing enforcing enforcing forcing this rate because of f its con conduct conduct conduct duct m in taking no further step after the schedule was as returned from the theoffice office of the clerk of the Interstate commerce commission to see ace that it was kept on file fUe there If It such luch con condU conduct duct dU ton on the part of ot the carrier r were permitted to affect a schedule once filed flied that tl at would as plainly be a VIii vla of the act as any other means of avoiding the force of ora a rate once fixed rIx but the Interstate commerce act prescribes how changes shall be bee made ronde Section i 6 3 reads No hange shall sha bo be made in n the rates rate fares tare and charges pr or Joint jOIO t rates fates CR fares res and nil 8 charges which have been Iteen filed flIed an and published by br any common carrier in s compliance with the requirements of this section except after after ter thirty days day notice to the commission and to t the th public published as aforesaid sUd etc ct e The published United States attorney for the t h e district of Utah Malt having been entered elter d as 18 attorney for the defendant without ut objection and having stated tho tto reasons r urged uri in i support Qt of f the bij l powers of the interstate commerce l commission and having argued the matter as attorney attorn for the defendant and arid given m the court the benefit of his hie Views aff as fully as though lie he jl had hadd ap up appeared formally for the interstate com coin morce commission and having thus sc c C t overt purpose that w his 11 hi iP on J I appearance pp I lot for the he th s I would have effected and the p r P of such uch s special peel a l appearances a being ap without any an warrant in SQ ao 1 0 or r rule le ot of f Practice as print 1 in the tito out oat ut aso of or Brooks vs 6 the t be Sr An S 1 t am ern company r In Fed t f rt IS js no practical end to be go gJ az w 01 1 making another doubtful t prec ree nt lup upon u such an as a Uon 4 |