Show BETWEEN i ft AND ANDr r COURT COURTIN IN TEXAS t of Screen Sc Be stion tion Jurisdiction reen een een Commerce Bodies I. I u Up for Settlement r ky HI Jan an l 12 The he The un unsettled d n T-or T of Jori between the n ne w Y v court and th the Interstate com com- Ii itC co commission m overshadowed o other ideate problem problem- of or s government considered rd hv tr- tilt the rt ft t of the United The Tho l tense llon existing In Washington was was wast t WI n 11 by toy tile te fad fact that o ot t I o er Que of cl cla cIas 35 s ratS rates l between Cm- Cm nall and Chattanooga CIlI upon pon n. n single Mr d d. d the tho Cincinnati New Orl an ni bias s there hero appeared ared not only for tor th railroad and jt tim the tho JCK lc legal I 8 of th tt commerce commission mid And or ot orl l i department of ju Justice lIco The Tho case wad wa be e e first from th the commerce court to toMen Men ell the he r mn court ho court Itself was tiu the th first to t jU UK- UK t a tI question about th thc of e commerce omm court Francis Franchi B. B 3 James Janios orr rr Cincinnati shippers was nas I It t t tn the n court an of I the tM failed to get cot a re- re of tiu G sch cb ue o cr tho Nc New Texas p Pato pato Pa- Pa to a a. 00 nt ba basiS li Ue HO told how ho the tiiS lon reduced 11 the schedule to 70 iO s and then tIun how hot the tho shippers appealed court to annul the lions lion's order let of Authority UtIce Van DeV d about power of the comm ico court to rf- rf ff tic me refusal al o or ot the tont tont to tont nt relief to a fl shipper j Ir r. r i n l that tho act acL creat- creat u the tho commeria court ID that that- lirt int to the shipper as ns well i is HS to the ril ben wn un dl d the tho ease rase e and nd th inns jurls- of lC the commerce court came tuI eI cK In It suc lr Jr pointed d' d dOllt out tint troll from I he C e t FC before r the th tint rt had decided It had jurisdiction over of oC the lie commission d n inar relief relle j in ne I but held tint that that th the order f C rates between cen Cincinnati and ind h was T no not to h he be disturbed If It I I Il the lie court hid hM eon concluded ild lit id Jr Mr on as R ur urged red d by tho shIn shIn- nr 18 that the cent 70 W was waa 8 x Te x T- T relve he e and Aud that t a cent 60 p dule was as ot r. r It lm c done don nothIng to lo un ati result It could rould only onh an- an Jn 3 its opinion It Jt It had tak n that and ent entered an ord order r annulling and c a aside ld th tho order of oC the tho on n. n t. t tv polo solA direct effect would Ila have e en en n U the tIie 6 opposite to Its d lre b because out the tho of oC reduction induction to rents ent It would Mould hay have I f but th tho rp mont nt r of f the former ormer cent 76 schedule r h dulc agreed d to lo bo ho cx- cx h tIt it Fr hardly reasonable I lo to that liat e If It had intended Intend tl to Ct ci the commerce court this tion Ion thus ha have hwe I oft left ft the court An am ny r m means ans of oC Itself to toon 1 ar r on In th tin tin- the le |