Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 December 1907
• Docket Number: 1,303.
• Citation: 157 F. 588
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington
• Parties: POTLATCH LUMBER CO. et al. v. SPOKANE FALLS & N. RY. CO. et al.

157 F. 588

POTLATCH LUMBER CO. et al. v. SPOKANE FALLS & N. RY. CO. et al.

No. 1,303.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Eastern Division.

December 24, 1907

H. M Stephens, for complainants.

John P Hartman, Albert Allen, M. J. Gordon, and E. J. Cannon, for defendants.

WHITSON District Judge.

Complainants engaged in the manufacture and interstate traffic of lumber and forest products, are corporations organized under the laws of several states, including Washington, and the defendants, interstate and intrastate common carriers engaged in interstate commerce by traffic connections with interstate carriers, are corporations also, and in that regard they present the same diversity of citizenship. Relief is sought by bill in equity against the enforcement of certain recently increased rates for the shipment of timber products from this district to eastern points beyond state limits. The grounds upon which complainants base their right to equitable interposition, as set forth in the bill, are that the defendants have arbitrarily, and by confederation and conspiracy, agreed to establish and fix unreasonable and unjust rates upon interstate commerce from points within the state of Washington, and especially within the territory coextensive with the territorial jurisdiction of this court to states other than the state of Washington; that the defendant railway companies, in connection with other participating carriers, have filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and have published, a revised tariff of rates, effective November 1, 1907, being I.C.C. No. 850, on lumber and other forest products from the state of Washington and other northwestern points of origin to eastern and southeastern destinations in other states, whereby the theretofore existing rates on forest products were advanced from 3 to 12 1/2 cents per 100 pounds, which rates, it is alleged, are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unjust, and will be unlawfully and wrongfully collected and extorted from the complainants and all shippers of interstate freight covered by said tariffs; that this combination and conspiracy is in violation of the acts of Congress commonly known as the 'Sherman Anti-Trust Act,' and the acts amendatory thereof. It is alleged that the interests controlling the competing lines have combined and parceled out the territory, and that said increased rate is in suppression of competition, for the mutual advantage of the carriers, and in violation of the acts of Congress; that while the tariffs generally speaking, on other commodities, have been reduced steadily for many years, and are still maintained at greatly reduced rates from those formerly charged, that it is now proposed to arbitrarily increase them on lumber and forest products by virtue of said collusive, unlawful, and discriminatory agreement. It is charged that the local lines participate in the increase in proportion to the mileage or distance of haul upon the respective roads as compared to the distance and haul by other connecting carriers, and that neither a court of law nor the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction to grant any reparation or afford any relief in the premises until after the threatened irreparable injury shall have been accomplished. It was disclosed at the hearing that the matter was pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission in pursuance of its power to regulate rates, and the aid of the court is sought to enjoin the exaction of the rates thus filed with that body until a hearing can be had before it, and rates be fixed, and that thereafter, upon final hearing, a decree be granted in conformity to law and equity. The main trunk lines originally parties to the suit, to wit, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the Great Northern Railway Company, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, the Union Pacific Railway Company, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, and the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company, have been dismissed upon the motion of complainants, for the reason that they are parties to like suits instituted in the Western district of this state, and in the district of Oregon. And the defendants now remaining are, with the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, and the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, local roads having traffic connections with the main trunk lines which have been dismissed, as well as with the lines last above mentioned. The increase in the rates over those formerly existing is set out in detail, from which it appears that there is a substantial advance in freight charges as set down in the traffic sheet hereinabove referred to.

The decisions of Judges Hanford and Wolverton granting injunctions at the suits of lumbermen of their respective districts were made prior to November 1st, and whatever be the merits of the contentions there made it is manifest that a different question is presented here; but in the present state of the record it must be taken that the rates filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, to become effective November 1st, are arbitrary, unreasonable, and exorbitant as alleged in the bill of complaint. It is unnecessary to consider the many questions, far reaching in their effect, which have been discussed upon the application for an injunction, but a summary of the legislation affecting the issue must be made for the purpose of ascertaining what rights may be enforced and what duties are required of the court in view of the facts, and the prayer for injunctive relief.

The most important provision appears in section 1, which reads:

'All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, shall be just and reasonable; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service or any part thereof is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.'

The foregoing appears in substantially the same form in Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154), as in the amendatory act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 584, c. 3591 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 892)). Without undertaking to point out the specific amendments made by the latter act, it will be sufficient for present purposes to note such provisions now in force as are applicable to the inquiry to be made.

Every common carrier is required to file with the commission, print and keep open to public inspection, a schedule showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation between the different points on its own route, and between points on its own route and points on the route of any other carrier by railroad. If no joint rate over the through route has been established, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print, and keep open to public inspection the separately established rates, fares, and charges applied to through transportation. These schedules must be plainly printed in large type, and notices for the use of the public must be kept posted in two public and conspicuous places in every depot, station, or office of the carrier where passengers or freight are received, in such form that they shall be accessible and can be conveniently inspected. No change shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges which have been filed and published by any common carrier, except after 30 days' notice to the commission and to the public. No carrier, unless otherwise provided by the act shall engage or participate in the transportation of passengers or property unless the rates, fares, and charges upon which the same are transported have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of the act; and no common carrier may charge or demand, collect, or receive a greater or less or different compensation between the points named in such tariffs than the rates specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time. The commission is authorized to hear complaints, and, if, after such hearing, it shall determine that any party complainant is entitled to an award of damages for a violation of the act, it shall make an order directing the carrier to pay the amount which it shall find due on or before a day to be named. If the carrier does not comply within the time limited, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit the order was made, may file in the Circuit Court for the district in which he resides, or in which is located the principal operating office of the carrier, or through which the road of the carrier runs, a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims damages, and the order of the commission in the premises, and thereupon the suit shall proceed in the Circuit Court in the manner pointed out by the act. If any carrier fails or neglects to obey any order of the commission other than for the payment of money, any party interested, or the commission in its own name, may apply to the Circuit Court in the district where such carrier has its principal office, or in which the violation shall have occurred, for an enforcement of the order. The venue is fixed and the method is pointed out whereby suits may be brought against the commission to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order or requirement by it made. No injunction or interlocutory decree suspending or restraining the enforcement of an order of the commission shall be granted except on a hearing after not less than five days' notice to the commission. The Circuit and District Courts of the United States are empowered upon the application of the Attorney General, at the request of the commission, alleging a failure to comply with or a violation of any of the provisions of the act to...