No. 8. ANSWER OF RESPONDENTS IN THAT PROCEEDING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Docket No. 5733 COLONIAL NAVIGATION COMPANY vs. THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, the respondent in the above entitled cause, without admitting any of the allegations contained in the said complaint while reserving to itself the right hereafter to deny both generally and specifically any and all of said allegations, respectfully alleges that this Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction to take any action in this case in respect to the establishment, through routing and ticketing as prayed by the complainant herein. In proof of lack of jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission to make any order upon this complaint under the circumstances of this case, The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company would refer to various schedules filed with this Honorable Commission showing that it is now and for a long time has been furnishing through transportation for passengers and their baggage by the system of transportation controlled by it between all the termini between which this complainant asks for the establishment of through arrangements. Some of these routes are shorter than the routes sought to be established by this complainant, and none of them are unreasonably long as compared with that for which the petitioner prays. In the case of certain of these routes between the termini in question respondent itself performs all of the transportation over its own railroad lines, and in the case of others part of the transportation is performed by water lines operated by corporations which it controls. Therefore to order the establishment of through routes embracing the lines of the complainant between the points prayed would be to require in the face of the explicit limitation upon the jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission the respondent without its consent to take less than the entire transportation which it is now performing between the termini named by the aforesaid routes. Whatever hardship if any, the complainant may feel it is suffering by not being able to take away from the respondent the business which it is doing by diverting that business to the lines of the complainant constitutes no inquiry cognizable by the law. Wherefore The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company respectfully asks that the above entitled complaint be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this Honorable Commission to compel this respondent under the circumstances set forth to do any of the things for which this complainant prays. Without waiving any of its rights under the above answer or without prejudice to its rights to urge other grounds of lack of jurisdiction at other times, The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, the respondent herein, for answer in this proceeding respectfully states: 1. That as to Paragraph I said respondent has no information, and therefore leaves proof of the same to the complainant. 2. That Paragraph II is admitted, but for further answer the respondent says that not only is it a common carrier engaged in the transportation of passengers and property between the city of Providence therein mentioned and the various cities and towns in the New England states by the railroads owned and operated by it but that between all the said cities and towns in the New England states and the city of New York it is engaged in the transportation of passengers and property by continuous carriage wholly by the railroad lines owned and operated by it. 3. That Paragraph III is admitted, but for further answer the respondent says that the New England Steamship Company is controlled by The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company and that the said New England Steamship Company is operated in conjunction with The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. 4. That Paragraph IV is admitted subject to the further answer that during all times when the New England Steamship Company maintains service between the said city of Providence and the said city of New York The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company discharges for and receives from the New England Steamship Company at a wharf used by the said companies where the rail lines of the railroad company and the water lines of the steamship company connect passengers and property pursuant to routes established between the railroad company and the steamship company between all points as to which the petitioner asks for the making of additional through routes. 5. That Paragraph V is admitted subject to the further answer that the respondent by various routes by its own railroad lines exclusively as well as by various routes established by agreement between the respondent company and the steamship companies controlled by it is furnishing through service or participating in through routes between the termini in question which when not actually shorter are reasonably short as compared with the through route which the complainant asks to have established. 6. That Paragraph VI is denied, the respondent maintaining that neither by any matters alleged in this complaint nor by any act of this respondent otherwise has this complainant been subjected to unjust discrimination of any sort in violation of sections 1, 2, or 3 of the Act to regulate commerce approved February 4th, 1887 and the Acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, and in particular this respondent denies that this complainant can claim whatever rights if any, a connecting carrier may have to complain of discriminatory treatment since this complainant cannot be regarded fairly as a connecting carrier as it does not by its water lines approach within a mile of that point where this respondent forwards and receives passengers and goods not by virtue of the ordinary obligations existing between connecting carriers but in conjunction with a water line controlled by it. 7. That as to Paragraph VII the respondent has no information, and therefore leaves proof of the same to the complainant. 8. And the respondent further in answering says that by section 15 of the Act to regulate commerce, approved Feb. 4th, 1887 and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto no company should be required without its consent to enter into any through route which would compel it to embrace in such route substantially less than the entire length of its transportation lines lying between the termini of such proposed through route, and that if required to enter into the through route asked by the complainant this respondent or companies controlled by it, would be compelled to give up to this complainant the transportation for 180 miles or thereabouts which is now being rendered in the case of certain single line routes exclusively by the railroads operated by it and in other cases by long established through routes by the water lines of steamboat companies controlled by this respondent and operated in connection therewith. 9. And the respondent further submits to the Commission that as the respondent is furnishing between all the termini in question by its railroad lines and by the water lines controlled by it an excellent and diversified service by all practicable routes and at all convenient times at reasonable and appropriate rates, the Commission should not order the establishment of the route as asked for by the complaint, the addition to the existing services of the service which the complainant desires to furnish not being in the public interest. The respondent would further raise the question before the Commission whether it should be compelled to allow the complainant to collect large sums of money by the sale of tickets calling for transportation over its route without the financial responsibility of the complainant being established to the satisfaction of the Commission. 10. And the respondent further says that this system of services which it has established between the termini in question is in all respects adequate to handle all of the business moving between these points and that the rates therefore are reasonable for the service rendered in every instance. By reason of the fact that all of the capital stock of the steamship companies with which the through arrangements are made is so held as to be virtually owned by the respondent it is immaterial to the revenues of the system of the respondent whether the business moves by its own railroad lines or by the water lines thus controlled by it. Whereas if compelled to divide its revenues with the complainant the loss of revenue of the system of the respondent might prevent it from giving the present high grade of service it now renders between those termini at the present low standard of rates. WHEREOF said respondent prays that the complaint in this proceeding may be dismissed: THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. To the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in equity, etc. (hereafter these bills will be brought in the Commerce Court sitting). Your petitioner the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was created and established and now exists under and by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States, entitled an Act to Regulate Commerce, approved February 4, 1887, as amended, etc. (here follows dates of amendatory acts), humbly complaining showeth: (I.) That the Illinois Central Railroad Company is, etc. (here follow the names of the various railroad corporations made defendants with the usual descriptions). (II.) That the defendants above named were on the 24th day of July, 1903, and ever since have been and still are common carriers engaged in the transportation of persons and property by railroad under joint through rates and as members of continuous through lines between points in different states of the United States, and particularly in the transportation of lumber from lumber-shipping points on their respective lines (etc.), to "Ohio River points" (etc.), and to points north of the Ohio River and on and east of the Mississippi River, and as such common carriers and in respect to such transportation were and are subject to the provisions of the said act to regulate commerce and the amendments thereto. (III.) That on the said 24th day of July, 1903, the Central Yellow Pine Association, composed of persons, firms and corporations engaged in the business of handling yellow pine lumber in the States of (etc.), filed, under section 13 of said Act to Regulate Commerce, a petition or complaint alleging violations on the part of the defendants of certain provisions of said act, as at large and more fully appears in and by the said complaint or petition on file in the office of the complainant herein, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made a part of this bill of complaint as Exhibit A; and that a copy of said Exhibit A, attested by the secretary of the complainant under the seal of the complainant was duly forwarded by the complainant to each of said defendants, as required by section 13 of said act. (IV.) That on August 15, 1903, the defendants filed answers to said complaint, Exhibit A hereto, as at large and more fully appears in and by said answers on file in the office of the complainant herein, copies of which are hereto annexed and made parts of this petition as Exhibits from B to F, both inclusive. (V.) That thereafterwards the said cause being at issue upon the pleadings aforesaid, duly came on for investigation and hearing before the complainant herein, the said Interstate Commerce Commission at (etc.) on (etc.) at which times and places the parties complainant and defendant appeared by their attorneys, or had due notice to appear, and testimony was taken on behalf of said parties. (VI.) That on February 7, 1905, the complainant herein duly determined the matter in controversy between the said parties before it and made a report in writing in respect thereof setting forth its findings of fact and its conclusions based on said findings, namely, that an advance made April 15, 1903, by all the defendants from, etc. (the shipping points named), to, etc. (the Ohio River points named) of 2 cents in the rate on lumber in car loads was not warranted and that the resultant increased rates were unreasonable and unjust, in violation of the Act to Regulate Commerce, as at large and more fully appears in and by the said report of the complainant, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made part of this petition or bill of complaint as Exhibit G. (VII.) That forthwith upon the determination of said cause as aforesaid on, to wit: said 7th day of February, 1905, the complainant duly formulated an order and notice in the premises based upon its findings and conclusions, requiring the defendants to cease and desist on or before April 1, 1905, from further maintaining or enforcing the said unlawful advance of 2 cents per 100 pounds, or the said unlawful rates resulting therefrom as aforesaid, which said order now remains in full force and effect, and a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made part of this bill of complaint as Exhibit H, etc. (VIII.) That the complainant agreeably to the provisions of the law in this regard duly caused a properly authenticated copy of its said report, Exhibit G hereunto, together with its said order Exhibit H hereunto, to be delivered to said defendants herein, and complainant shows that the said defendants, unmindful of their duty in that regard, have, through their officers, servants and attorneys, wholly disregarded and set at naught said order of the complainant, Exhibit H hereto, and have willfully and knowingly violated and disobeyed the same, and still do neglect and refuse to comply with the same or any part thereof. (IX.) And the complainant charges that the said advance of 2 cents in the said lumber rates was and is unwarranted and has resulted in rates excessive, unreasonable and unjust in violation of the act to regulate commerce. (X.) Wherefore the complainant prays: 1. That a subpoena or other suitable process may issue according to the course of equity (etc.). 2. That an order be made by this honorable court directing the method of service of notice (etc.). 3. That proper orders may be passed pending the cause as will secure a speedy hearing (etc.). 4. That proper orders to facilitate inquiries be made (etc.). 5. That upon the final hearing hereof a decree may be entered granting to complainant a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain the said defendants, and each of them, and their respective officers, servants and agents, from further continuing in their violation of and disobedience to the said order of the Commission. 6. That a decree may be entered fixing a sum not exceeding $500 per day, for every day of disobedience to the injunction (etc.). |