OCR Text |
Show COAL COMPANIES LOSE li RAILROAD ACTIOI Court Holds That Interstate Commerce Commission Alone Has Jurisdiction. MANDAMUS IS ASKED Federal Tribunal Passes on Suit Growing Out of the Shortage of Cars. Ob the ground that the court is without with-out jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief prayed, for the reason that the interstate commerce commission alone is authorized to make rules in such matters, Judge Tillman D. John-ton John-ton in the federal court yesterday denied de-nied the petition of several Utah coal companies for a writ of mandate against the Denver & Bio Grande railroad, the Oregon Short Line and the Utah Fuel company requiring thom to equitably distribute cars for the transportation of coal. The petitioners invoking the aid or the federal court were the Standard C'oal company, Independent Coal & Coke company, Spring Canyon Coal company and the' Cameron Coal company. In their petition, filed in the federal court a few weeks ago, they prayed for the writ of mandate against the railroad rail-road companies and the fnel company for the equitable distribution of cars in accordance with the terms of a rule which, it is alleged, the defendant companies com-panies had heretofore promulgated. The petitioners alleged that they are . the owners of certain coal mines situated in Carbon county; that the Denver & Rio Grande operates a railroad and is engaged as a common carrier in interstate inter-state commerce; that the coal mines of the petitioners are located on the lines of the Denver & Rio Grande and the coal companies are dependent upon the Denver & Rio Grande for transportation transporta-tion of the coal mined and shipped by them. Short Line Included. The Oregon Short Line was mentioned iu the petition as a connecting carrier of the D. & R. G. The Utah Fuel company com-pany was mentioned as a corporation engaged in operating certain coal mines in Carbon county and shipping its product prod-uct in competition with the petitioners, and also engaged in the manufacture of coke. It was further alleged "that for the purpose of distributing cars to your petitioners pe-titioners and the said Utah Fuel company com-pany and other coal companies the D. R. G. heretofore established a certain system of empty car distribution, which siiid system the Oregon Short Line had adopted in so far as cars are furnished from its railroad to the D. & R. G. for the purpose of shipment of coal from the said mining properties herein mentioned." men-tioned." The petitioners alleged that for more than a year past, and up to the time of the filing of the petition, there existed a shortage of cars, as well as a lack of motive power for the shipment of coal, and that during the period of the shortage short-age the railroad companies, in violation of.t.he rule theretofore adopted, discriminated discrimi-nated in the distribution of cars against trie petitioners and have, in violation of the rule, furnished the Utah Fuel company more cars than it was entitled to receive and to the petitioners a fewer n timber of cars than they were severally entitled to. Frayer of Petitioners. The petitioners prayed the court that "the defendants be required to discontinue discon-tinue their said discriminatory practice in the distribution of cars and to apply the system of car distribution according accord-ing to a rule promulgated by them." In his decision, Judge Johnson said: It is apparent from the petition that the Oregon Short Line does and can do no more than deliver cars to the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad company, and under no Tiew of the circumstances would the petitioners be entitled to a writ of mandate against the Oregon Short Line railroad. This court will not require by writ of mandato that company to do what it is powerless to perform, and the same reasoning applies with equal or greater force to the defendant Utah Fuel company. com-pany. It mav be true that by reason of the alleged contract relations between be-tween the Oregon Short Line and the Denver & Rio Grande with respect re-spect to the distribution of cars, and by reason of tbo alleged ownership owner-ship of the corporate stock of the Utah Fuel company by tho Denver & Rio Grande, that these defendants may be properly parties in this litigation and that by reason of their interest in the result thereof tho court might be justified in permitting per-mitting them to appear and defend in the cause. They certainly are not necessary parties to the determination deter-mination of the matter at issue, or in securing to the petitioners the full relief against the praetico concerning con-cerning which they complain. Dismissal Ordered, As both the Oregon Short Line Rnd the Utah Fuel company have appeared and demurred to the petition, pe-tition, praying that they be dismissed dis-missed from the action, I can boo no sufficient reason why they should be retained in the cause against their will. The action, therefore, will be dismissed dis-missed M to each o said defendants defend-ants unless petitioner, within a reasonable rea-sonable time, applies to the court for leave to amend. The defendant, the Denver A Rio Grande rnilrond, has filed its answer an-swer herein, deuyiug all of the material ma-terial allocations of the petition and alleging affirmatively that it has at all times carried out the rule adopted, promulgated and filed with the interstate commerce commission com-mission with respect to the distribution distri-bution of cars to the petitioners, the Utah Fuel company and other coal companies. For the guidance of the parties in the conduct of this proceeding in tho future I will add I am of the opinion that where a railroad com-panv com-panv adopts, promulgates and files i with the interstate commerce commission com-mission of its own volition a rule or system of car distribution this court has authority to require such railroadj company to carry out its own rule according to its terms so long as such rule remains unrevoked unre-voked and in force. Such rule, however, Bhould be clear and unequivocal and ita ruean- Lug apparent to tbe subject matter without the necessity of construction. construc-tion. If the reasonableness of the rule is attacked this court is without with-out authority to grant the relief prayed for, as the interstate commerce com-merce commission has sole jurisdiction jurisdic-tion in such cases. Without Jurisdiction. If, as intimated at the argument, in order for the rule to he equitable, equita-ble, fair aud just to tho petitioners, cars furnished the fuel company for the shipment of coke should be included in-cluded in the distribution of cars to the several users, and the rule promulgated by the railroad company com-pany does not include such coke cars by its terms, this court would be equally without jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief prayed for, for the reason that the inteT-ptate inteT-ptate commerce commission alone is authorized to make rules in Buch matters. The sole power of this court is j and would be to require the Denver Den-ver & Rio Grande Railroad com- panv to carry out a rule already , made aud the terms of which are clear and explicit. Tliere was no order passed in the ; federal court yesterday, and the parties interested will probably appear in court J tomorrow to receive the necessary order j carrying out the views of Judge John-I John-I son, as motioned, above. |