DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., June 11, 1912. To the PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. SIR: Pursuant to the request of the Senate contained in resolution adopted June 10, 1912, I have the honor to transmit herewith the following papers: 1. Statement of all cases brought in the United States Commerce Court, together with summary of questions of law and of fact decided in each, with date of commencement of each case and the decision of the court thereon. 2. List of cases pending in the United States Commerce Court on June 11, 1912. 3. List of cases appealed from the United States Commerce Court to the Supreme Court, and the disposition or status of each. 4. Complete set of opinions of the United States Commerce Court. Very respectfully, GEO. W. WICKERSHAM, Attorney General. 3 STATEMENT OF ALL CASES BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES COMMERCE COURT, TOGETHER WITH SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS OF LAW AND OF FACT DECIDED IN EACH, AND DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF EACH CASE AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT THEREON. JUNE 11, 1912. No. 1. Southern Pacific Company et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, commonly known as the "San Francisco switching case." The Interstate Commerce Commission entered an order requiring the carriers to desist from exacting their switching charge of $2.50 for deliveries on sidetracks at San Francisco where private industries are located, in instances where such deliveries were made by the carrier which hauled the traffic to San Francisco from points outside the State of California. June 1, 1910, the carriers filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, supported by affidavits. An answer was filed to the bill. February 8, 1911, the case was transferred to the Commerce Court. April 5, 1911, the United States, after having intervened, filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued and submitted on printed briefs. The Santa Fe Co. claimed that if the order of the commission were enforced, it would sustain a loss of approximately $40,000 a year. The Southern Pacific Co. claimed that if the order of the commission were enforced, it would sustain a loss of approximately $70,705 a year. July 20, 1911, the Commerce Court (Judge Mack dissenting) handed down its opinion holding the order of the commission erroneous because (1) the industrial or spur track service of railway companies in making deliveries to and from industries located on their lines was a service different from that rendered by them in making deliveries to and from the public team tracks; and (2) the general tariff charge for the transportation of freight to San Francisco did not pay for the delivery of such freight over their rails to the industrial plants and that the carriers were entitled to make additional charges for such deliveries. Thereupon the court entered its order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the motion of the United States to dismiss the bill. August 18, 1911, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court from this order and the cause was docketed September 22, 1911. No. 2. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, commonly known as the "Los Angeles switching case." The Interstate Commerce Commission entered its order requiring the carriers to desist from exacting their switching charge of $2.50 for deliveries on sidetracks at Los Angeles where private industries are located, in instances where such deliveries were made. by the carrier which hauled the traffic to Los Angeles from points outside of the State of California. June 1, 1910, the carriers filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, supported by affidavits. An answer was filed to the bill. February 8, 1911, the case was transferred to the Commerce Court. April 5, 1911, the United States, after having intervened, filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued and submitted on printed briefs. The Southern Pacific Co. claimed that if the order of the commission were enforced, it would sustain a loss of approximately $84,430 a year. The Santa Fe Co. claimed that if the order of the commission were enforced, it would sustain a loss of approximately $60,000 a year. On July 20, 1911, the Commerce Court (Judge Mack dissenting) handed down its opinion, holding the order of the commission erroneous because (1) the industrial or spur track service of railway companies in making deliveries to and from industries located on their lines was a service different from that rendered by them in making deliveries to and from the public team tracks; and (2) the general tariff charge for the transportation of freight to Los Angeles did not pay for the delivery of such freight over their rails to the industrial plants, and that the carriers were entitled to make additional charges for such deliveries. Thereupon the court entered its order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the motion of the United States to dismiss the bill. On August 18, 1911, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court from this order, and the cause was docketed September 22, 1911. No. 3. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Company et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, commonly known as the "Kiser boot and shoe case." The Interstate Commerce Commission reduced the rate on boots and shoes from New England points to |