IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

In equity, No.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION vs. THE DETROIT, GRAND Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company.

To the circuit court of the United States sitting in equity within and for the western district of Michigan:

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 by an act approved March 2, 1889, and as amended by an act approved February 10, 1891, humbly complaining showeth unto your honors, that the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company is a corporation, created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, and was at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter specially mentioned, and still is a common carrier engaged in the transportation of persons and property partly by railroad and partly by water, under a common control, management or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment by its railroad and line of steamboats, extending through several of the United States and particularly was it then engaged in such business between the cities of Detroit and Grand Haven, in said State of Michigan, to and from the city of Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin; that its line of transportation, as above stated, then formed and still forms a continuous line to and from said cities of Detroit, Grand Haven, and Milwaukee, as well as between and through the various stations of its said line, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Ionia, in the said State of Michigan, and as such common carrier was during all the time aforesaid and still is subject to the said act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," and the amendments thereto.

That the said defendant was heretofore, to wit, on the 24th day of September, A. D. 1888, duly impleaded in a controversy not requiring a trial by jury as provided by the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States, before the said Interstate Commerce Commission upon the petition of Mary O. Stone and Thomas Carten, partners, then doing business under the firm name and style of Stone & Carten, and then and now residing at the city of Ionia aforesaid, for the alleged violation on the part of the said defendant of the provisions of the said act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," as at large and more fully appears in and by the said petition on file in the office of the said Commission, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made a part of this petition, the same being marked Exhibit A.

That thereafterwards, to wit, on the 8th day of October, 1888, the defendant, the said Detroit, Grand Haven, and Milwaukee Railway Company filed its answer to the above-named petition of the said Stone & Carten, as at large and more fully appears in and by said answer on file in the office of the said Commission, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed as a part of this petition, the same being marked Exhibit B.

That thereafterwards, the said cause being at issue upon the pleadings aforesaid, duly came on for investigation and hearing before the said Interstaté Commerce Commission, duly and legally assembled for

that purpose, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on the 29th day of January, 1889, when the said complainants the said Stone & Carten, as well as the said defendant the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company, duly appeared by their respective officers and attorneys and thereupon the said cause proceeded to hearing and determination.

That at the said hearing it was made to appear to the satisfaction of the said Commission that the said defendant had violated the provisions of the said act, entitled "An act to regulate commerce," in certain respects, as was stated to have been violated by it in the said petition hereinbefore referred to as a part hereof, and thereupon, on the 26th day of April, 1890, said Commission duly and legally determined the matters and things in controversy and at issue between the said parties, and made a report in writing in respect thereof, which included the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the said Commission were based, as at large and more fully appears in and by the report of the determination of the said Commission, on file in the office of the said Commission, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made a part of this petition, the same being marked Exhibit C.

That thereafterwards, to wit, on the 12th day of May, 1890, upon the determination of the said cause as aforesaid, the said Commission duly formulated an order and notice in relation to the matters and things stated and charged in the said petition based upon the findings and determinations of the said Commission with respect thereto, agreeably to the requirements of the statute in such case made and provided, which said order now remains in full force and effect, never having been vacated, set aside, altered, modified, or changed in any respect whatever, and is now on file in the office of the said Commission, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made a part of this petition, the same being marked Exhibit D.

That thereafterwards, on the 13th day of May, 1890, the said Commission, agreeably to the provisions of the law in that regard, duly caused a properly authenticated copy of its said report in respect thereto as aforesaid, together with the order and notice aforesaid, to be delivered to the said defendant.

And thereupon the petitioner shows that it has not been made to appear to the said Commission that the said defendant has ceased and desisted from the violations of law set forth in the said report and order of the said Commission, but on the contrary thereof the said defendant, unmindful of its duty and of the decision and determination of the said Commission, as stated in its report as aforesaid, has, through its officers, servants, and attorneys, wholly disregarded and set at naught the authority and order of the said Commission in that regard, and has willfully and knowingly violated and disobeyed the said order, and has from the time of the issuance and service of the said order and notice, as hereinbefore set forth, hitherto wholly neglected and refused, and still does neglect and refuse to comply with the same, to wit, at Grand Rapids and Ionia, in the district and State aforesaid, in this, that the said defendant did not within thirty days from the service of a copy of the report of the said Commission, Exhibit C aforesaid, cease and desist from the violation of law therein found and then consisting of furnishing free cartage to and from its station at Grand Rapids for freight carried on its road, as the said defendant was in and by said order of the said Commission directed to cease and desist from furnishing, but, on the contrary thereof, has, since the expiration of said thirty days,

continued to furnish such free cartage in violation of the order of the Commission as aforesaid.

And the petitioner further shows that soon after the expiration of said thirty days, to wit, on the 9th day of June, 1890, the said defendant forwarded to the said Interstate Commerce Commission, a letter, which is now on file in the office of the said Commission, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed and made a part of this petition, the same being marked Exhibit E.

Wherefore the petitioner prays

1. That a subpoena or other suitable process may issue according to the course of equity, requiring the said Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company to appear at such time and place as this honorable court may determine, then and there to make full, complete, and perfect answer to all the matters and things hereinabove stated and charged as fully and particularly as if the said company was specifically and specially interrogated in regard thereto without verifying said answer by oath, which said verified answer is hereby specially waived. 2. That upon the filing of this petition an order may be passed by this honorable court directing the method of service of notice and the pendency of this proceeding.

3. That such order or orders may be passed pending the cause as will secure a speedy hearing and determination of the matters and things stated and charged in the foregoing petition.

4. That such order or orders may be passed pending the cause as may be necessary for the prosecution of all such inquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judgment of the matters and things stated and charged in the foregoing petition.

5. That an order may be entered pending the cause granting to the petitioner a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain the said defendant, its officers, servants, and attorneys, from further continuing in their violations of and disobedience to the said order of the said Commission, and that upon final hearing such injunction may be made perpetual.

6. That a decree may be entered, if it shall seem meet to this honorable court, requiring the said defendant to pay such sum of money, not exceeding the sum of $500, for every day after a day to be named in said decree that it shall fail to obey the said injunction or other proper process.

7. For such other and further relief in the premises as to the court may seem meet and the equities of the petitioner's cause may require. THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

[L. S.]

By EDW. A. MOSELEY.

The Secretary thereof, thereunto duly authorized.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION.

In equity.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION vs. THE DETROIT, GRAND Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company.

The answer of the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company to the petition of the Interstate Commerce Commission, filed against it in the above-entitled cause.

First. Respondent admits all of the averments of fact contained in said petition, and it also admits the finding of facts embodied in the opinion of the Interstate Commerce Commission attached to and made a part of said petition as Exhibit C, to wit, the findings numbered respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11.

Second. In further answer to said petition respondent says that it has been the practice of railway companies engaged in interstate commerce, not only in the State of Michigan, but throughout the United States, to do free carting as a means of securing traffic at numerous stations on their respective lines of railway for many years past, and long before the passage of the interstate commerce act, and that this practice still continues. It has been and is deemed by respondent and the other railway companies referred to as legitimate as the expense of maintaining commercial agents at exceptional stations to solicit freight and other business for the road. It has also been the practice, which still continues at exceptional stations on the lines of many railroads engaged in interstate commerce business, to build, at large expense, systems of belt railroad, so called, for the purpose of securing business for the main line of railway, and over such belt roads cars, in connection with interstate traffic, are hauled between the main line of road of the company operating it and the places of business adjacent to and near the track of such belt system free of charge to the shipper.

Respondent states, on information and belief, that such belt systems exist and are operated as aforesaid by the Michigan Central Railroad Company, in the State of Michigan, at the following-named places, to wit, at the city of Detroit, the city of Jackson, the city of Lansing, the city of Battle Creek.

Systems of free carting are also carried on extensively by railroad companies in connection with interstate commerce traffic in the following-named cities: The city of Detroit, and city of Chicago in the State of Illinois; the cities of Toledo and Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, and the city of New York; and respondent is informed and believes, and so states the fact to be, that the practice prevails in numerous other cities in the United States, and by many different railway companies engaged in carrying interstate traffic. In all of these instances, in respect of free cartage as in respect of the belt systems of railway and free transportation thereon, the practice prevails only at exceptional stations where the business is of sufficient magnitude to warrant the carrier in incurring the expense, and such expense is deemed to be, in these instances, legitimate as a means of securing traffic for the railroad, and of affording increased facilities and despatch in doing its business.

Third. Respondent further states that on every railroad in the State of Michigan-and it is informed and believes that the same is true on

every railroad in the United States-there are tracks constructed by the railway company, at its own expense, at exceptional stations on the line of road, leading from the main track of the road to private business establishments, which are used solely for delivering and receiving freight in the business between such private business establishments and the railway-much of which is interstate traffic-and without any charge being made by the railway company therefor, while other private business establishments at the same station of the railroad, and at other stations on the same railroad, are not afforded these advantages in connection with such traffic, but are compelled to incur the expense of carting to and from stations.

The practice of the railway companies of the country in this regard has existed almost, if not quite, from the beginning of railroads in this country, and is believed to be fully justified by consideration of business economy, and that it does not infringe any provision of the interstate-commerce law. And yet respondent claims and submits that the practice involves more of the elements of discrimination than does the cartage system at Grand Rapids, here complained of.

Fourth. Respondent's practice of free carting at said city of Grand Rapids was originally adopted and is still continued because it is less expensive to it than would be a change of its line of railroad so as to bring it into closer proximity to the business center of said city or the construction and operation of spur tracks from its main line of road into said business center, where the main-line tracks of its competitors, the Michigan Central and the Detroit, Lansing and Northern Railroad Companies, are laid in said city.

Such free cartage has the additional advantage, wherever it exists, of enabling the carrier to promptly clear the freight buildings of traffic and prevent its burdensome and expensive accumulation, and it secures a method of order in delivering traffic from its buildings. Where the acceptance and removal of freight is left to consignees the tendency of all stations where the traffic is great is for consignees to make a convenience for themselves of the freight buildings of the railway company for storage of their freight, which leads to great embarrassment and expense to the company. And if consignees are left to receive their freight at the station there is no order observed, and in the nature of the business can not be, in their calls for freight. The freight can not be delivered in the order of its reception at the station, and the freight last received into the station is often first called for. To so make delivery always involves a considerable increase of expense to the company.

The practice of delivering to the consignee also saves the expense of sending out to the consignees advice notes of the arrival of freight.

Fifth. Respondent states that the free cartage at said city of Grand Rapids, or the extension of its railroad tracks into the business center of said city, is an absolute condition of respondent's procuring for its road a due and proper, or any considerable, part of the freight traffic of said city; and it avers that the matter in dispute involved in this cause exceeds the sum or value of $5,000, exclusive of costs.

Sixth. The 2 cents a hundred pounds paid for cartage at said city of Grand Rapids by respondent is not paid alone for the cartage, but includes the services of the cartage agents, acting in behalf of respondents, in soliciting freight traffic for its road and collecting from consignees and consignors all bills for the freight charges of respondent on the traffic carried. The value of these services to the respondent, aside