Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 August 1890
• Citation: 43 F. 37
• Parties: INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

43 F. 37

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

August 11, 1890

A. G Safford and John W. Herron, for complainant.

John K Cowen, Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, and Hugh L. Bond Jr., for respondent.

Before JACKSON and SAGE, JJ.

JACKSON J.

This is an application or proceeding under the provision of the interstate commerce act, by the interstate commerce commission, for the issuance by this court of a writ of injunction, or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise to restrain the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company from further continuing in its violation of certain orders of said commission, and for a decree requiring said railroad company to pay such sum of money, not exceeding the sum of $500, for every day after a day to be named in the decree that said defendant shall fail to obey said injunction or other proper process. The orders of the commission, which this court is asked to enforce by its injunction or mandatory process, were made upon a complaint filed before the interstate commerce commission by the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Company, against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, which set forth and alleged that the petitioner was duly incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, and was engaged as a common carrier in operating a system of railroads, extending from Pittsburgh, Pa., to various towns and cities in said state; that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company was duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Maryland, and was also a common carrier operating a system of railroads, a part of which extended from said city of Pittsburgh to many of the important towns and cities in the above-named states, which were reached by petitioner's lines of road, and thus made it a competitor of petitioner in respect to business between said points; that upon its lines of road on which business competitive with that of petitioner was transacted the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company had put into effect, and had then in operation, so-called 'party-rates,' whereby parties of ten or more persons traveling on one ticket were transported over said lines of road, between stations located thereon, at two cents per mile per capita, which was less than the rate for a single person, the rate for a single passenger being about three cents per mile; that said Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company was also in the habit of selling round-trip excursion tickets, good between points on its lines of railway, at less than rates charged for ordinary tickets, without publicly posting in its ticket offices, or elsewhere, the rates at which said excursion tickets were sold; that the issuance of said 'party-rate' tickets, and the selling of excursion tickets without posting the rates therefor, were in violation of the interstate commerce act, in petitioner's judgment, and for that reason it had declined to place the same in effect upon its lines; that by reason of said 'party rates' and excursion rates so allowed and issued by said Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company traffic was diverted from petitioner's lines to those of the Baltimore & Ohio Company; and that petitioner was greatly damaged by loss of revenue thereby,-- wherefore petitioner prayed that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company should be required, by an order of the commission, to withdraw from its lines of road in which business competitive with that of petitioner was transacted said 'party rates,' and to decline to give such rates in future; and also requiring said company to discontinue the practice of selling excursion tickets at less than the regular rate unless the rates for such tickets were posted in its offices. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company answered said complaint, admitting the corporate character and business of the two companies as stated in the petition, admitting that it had and did sell, on or between special dates, round-trip excursion tickets at less rate than those charged for ordinary tickets without posting notice of the same in its ticket offices, except by way of advertisement. It claimed that said excursion tickets so sold were such excursion tickets as are mentioned in the twenty-second section of the act to regulate commerce, which the act did not require should be posted, and which it would be practically useless, if not impossible, to post, but that defendant published such rates through the usual means employed by all other railroad companies, as by newspaper advertisements, hand-bills, etc.

The defendant admitted that it had issued the so-called 'Party Rates,' which, it claimed, were in no way a violation of the act to regulate commerce, but, on the contrary, were an accommodation to the public, necessary to the business of theatrical and amusement companies and others traveling together in a large body. The defendant also denied that the petitioner had any right to institute said proceedings before the commission; that it was not such a complainant as the act to regulate commerce authorized to make complaint, its alleged injury from defendant's acts arising or resulting to it only as a competing carrier; and defendant moved to dismiss said petition on said ground, and because petitioner did not allege facts sufficient to bring it within any of the classes of persons, firms, corporations, or associations who could properly institute such proceedings. This motion was either not insisted upon, or was denied, as the commission proceeded to hear and consider the complaint, and on February 21, 1890, filed its report in the premises, holding-- First, that passenger excursion rates are required to be published according to the provisions of section 6 of the act to regulate commerce, and that the practice of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company of selling round-trip excursion tickets at less than rates charged for ordinary tickets, without publicly posting in its ticket offices the rates at which such excursion tickets were sold, was in violation of the law; and, secondly, that 'party-rate' tickets are not commutation tickets within the true meaning of section 22 of the act, and when party rates to 10 or more persons traveling together on a single ticket are lower than contemporaneous rates for single passengers, they constitute discrimination, and are illegal. It was thereupon ordered and adjudged by the commission-- First, that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company 'be and it is hereby required to print, post, and file schedules showing the rates, fares, and charges now or hereafter established by it for round-trip passenger excursion tickets between points on its lines or between points on its lines and points on the lines of other common carriers with whom it joins or hereafter may join in establishing rates, fares, and charges therefor, in conformity with the provisions of section 6 of the act to regulate commerce; ' and, secondly, 'that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company do forthwith wholly and immediately cease and desist from charging rates for transportation over its lines of a number of persons traveling together in one party, which are less for each person than rates contemporaneously charged by said defendant under schedules lawfully in effect for the transportation of single passengers between the same points. ' Notice embodying said orders, together with a copy of the commission's report and opinion, was duly sent to and received by the defendant. Thereafter, on May 1, 1890, the interstate commerce commission filed its petition or bill in this court against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, setting forth the foregoing proceedings before and orders made by the commission, and charging that the defendant, since the issuance and service upon it of said orders, had wholly disregarded and set at naught the authority and commands of said commission; that it had neglected and refused, and still does neglect and refuse, to furnish the commission, and to print, post, and file, schedules showing the rates, fares, and charges established by it for round-trip passenger excursion tickets, as required by law, and as in and by the order of the commission it was enjoined and required to do; and, further, that defendant had not ceased and desisted from charging rates for the transportation over its lines of a number of persons traveling together in one party, on a single ticket, which are less for each person of such party than rates contemporaneously charged by it under schedules lawfully in effect for the transportation of single passengers between the same points, as in and by said order of the commission it was required to cease from doing. After setting out various instances in which the defendant had, since the promulgation of said order, issued such 'party-rate' tickets, the petition or bill invokes the aid of this court to compel obedience on the part of defendant to the requirements of said orders and to punish it as prescribed by the statute for its continual disregard thereof. The defendant duly entered its appearance and filed its answer. After admitting the proceedings before the commerce commission, which resulted in the foregoing orders, the defendant denies that it had failed and neglected, since the issuance thereof, to furnish to the commission, and to print, post, and file, schedules showing the rates fixed and charges established by it for round-trip passenger excursion tickets issued by it, as required by law, or even as required in and by the said order of the commission. It admitted that it had not ceased and desisted from charging rates for transportation over its lines for a number of passengers traveling together in one party upon one ticket, which are less for each person of such party of...