That at the said hearing it was made to appear to the satisfaction of the said Commission that the said defendant had violated the provi sions 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 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 F.

That thereafterwards and forthwith, 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 determination 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 G.

That thereafterwards, to wit, on the 13th day of March, 1891, 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 Drifton, Eckley, Gowen, Tomhicken, Derringer, Stockton, and Beaver Meadow, in the district and State aforesaid, in this, that the said defendant has not wholly ceased and desisted from charging any greater compensation for the transportation of divers known kinds and sizes of anthracite coal delivered to it by the said Coxe Brothers & Co. and other shippers for carriage from shipping points on its lines of railroad at or near the coal mines and collieries of the said Coxe Brothers & Co. in the mining locality known as the Lehigh anthracite coal region, to wit: From Drifton, Eckley, Gowen, Tomhicken, Derringer, and Stockton, all in the county of Luzerne and State of Pennsylvania, and Beaver Meadow, in the county of Carbon and State of Pennsylvania, to Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, than the following rates of charge per ton of 2,240 pounds of each or either of said divers known kinds and sizes of anthracite coal, that is to say: $1.50 per said ton on the sizes and kinds known as larger or prepared sizes and also and more specifically known as lump, steamboat, broken, egg, stove, and nut

coal; $1.25 per said ton on the size or kind known as pea coal; $1.05 per said ton on the size or kind known as buckweat coal; $1.05 per said ton on the size or kind of coal known as culm, as the said defendant was in and by the said order of the said Commission directed to cease and desist from charging, but on the contrary thereof has since continued to charge, collect, and receive from the said Coxe Brothers & Co. and other shippers and consignees freight rates in excess of the legal rates by the order prescribed; and the petitioner attaches hereto by way of a specification of some of the particulars in which the said defendant has failed to comply with the said order and report of the said Commission a copy of a verified petition addressed to it by the said Coxe Brothers & Co., together with certain exhibits thereto belonging and thereto attached, marked A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, C1, the same being marked Exhibit H, and is made a part hereof. Wherefore the petitioner prays

1. That a subpoena or other suitable process may issue according to the course of equity, requiring the said Lehigh Valley Railroad 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 of 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.-APRIL SESSION, 1891.

In equity.-No. 28.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION vs. THE LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY.

Answer of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company to the petition in the above-entitled proceeding filed by the Interstate Commerce Commis

sion.

To said petition this defendant doth make answer and say:

1. It is true that the defendant is a corporation created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, having its principal office at Philadelphia, in the said State of Pennsylvania.

2. It is also true that the defendant, at the time specified in the petition filed, was, and that it still is, a common carrier engaged in transportation of persons and property in the State of Pennsylvania under the powers conferred upon it by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and in the State of New Jersey as the lessee of the Easton and Amboy Railroad under the powers conferred upon the latter company by the Commonwealth of New Jersey.

3. It is true that the defendant at said time was, and still is, as owner of its said railroad in Pennsylvania and as lessee of the said railroad belonging to the last-named company, in the State of New Jersey, engaged in the transportation of coal and other articles, inter alia, from the Lehigh coal region, the Wyoming coal region, and the Mahanoy coal region, in the State of Pennsylvania, to various points in the States of New Jersey and New York.

4. It is true that as such common carrier the defendant at said time was, and still is, as to such business, subject, so far as the same are legal, to the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," and the amendments thereto.

5. It is true that on the 19th day of October, 1888, the defendant was, as is set forth in said petition, impleaded upon the petition of Eckley B. Coxe, Alexander B. Coxe, and Henry B. Coxe, and said Eckley B. Coxe and Alexander B. Coxe, executors of Charles B. Coxe, deceased, trading as copartners under the firm name and style of Coxe Brothers & Co., of Drifton, in the county of Luzerne, and State of Pennsylvania, for alleged violations by it of the provisions of said act.

6. It is true that on the 26th day of October, 1888, said petition was amended in the way set forth in the petition filed in this cause.

7. Defendant is willing to admit that orders were made by the Commission concerning other railroad companies than the defendant, and that notices were given to said railroad companies in the way and manner in said petition averred. It denies, however, that said averments are in any way material to any matter in which it is interested or has

concern.

8. It is true that on the 12th day of November, 1888, the defendant did file its answer to said petition of the said Coxe Brothers & Co., in the office of the said Commission.

9. It is admitted that all copies of papers and proceedings annexed to said petition are correct copies of the originals.

10. It is true that the cause thus set at issue by the said petition of

Coxe Brothers & Co., and by the answer of this defendant, was investigated and heard before the said Interstate Commerce Commission on the days and at the times in the petition in this case set forth, and that this defendant was then represented by counsel.

11. It is true that the said Commission after said hearing and investigation did determine the matters and things in controversy at issue between the said parties, and did make a report in writing in respect thereto, which included the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the said Commission were based, and that Exhibit F, attached to the petition in this cause, is a copy of said report.

12. It is true that the said Commission did formulate an order and notice, and that Exhibit G, attached to the petition in this cause, is a correct copy of the same.

13. It is true that on the 13th day of March, 1891, the said Commission did cause a properly authenticated copy of its said report, together with said order and notice, to be delivered to this defendant.

14. It is also true that this defendant has not complied with the order so made by said Commission, and that it has not at any time since the making of said order carried anthracite coal from Drifton, Eckley, Gowen, Tomhicken, Derringer, or Stockton, in the county of Luzerne, State of Pennsylvania, nor from Beaver Meadow, in the county of Carbon, State of Pennsylvania, to Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, at a rate of charge per ton of 2,240 pounds of $1.50 per said ton upon the sizes and kinds known as larger or prepared sizes, and also and more specifically known as lump, steamboat, broken, egg, stove, and nut coal, or of $1.25 per said ton on the size or kind known as pea coal, or of $1.05 per said ton on the size or kind known as buckwheat coal, or of $1.05 per said ton on the size or kind of coal known as culm. 15. It is true that since the making of said order, and also since the service of said notice, this defendant has charged, collected, and received from the said Coxe Brothers & Co., and from other shippers and consignees, freight rates in excess of said rates last specified, to wit, the rates set forth in Exhibit H, attached to the petition in this case.

16. This defendant denies that at the hearing of the issue between it and the said Coxe Brothers & Co., before the Interstate Commerce Commission, it did appear that it had violated any provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce."

17. This defendant in reply to averments in the petition that it has in divers particulars violated the provisions of said act, denies the truth of the same.

18. This defendant avers that the findings of fact by said Commission, and the conclusions of said Commission based upon said findings, said findings and conclusions being set forth in Exhibit F, were not just or in accordance with fact or law.

19. This defendant avers that the conclusion of the said Commission that the rates charged by it for the transportation of anthracite coal from the coal regions to Perth Amboy were unreasonable and unjust, was erroneous. It avers that the rates by it then charged, and since continued by it to be charged, for transportation were just and reasonable.

20. This defendant avers that all the findings of fact by said Commission which led it to the conclusion that the rates charged by the defendants were unreasonable and unjust, were erroneous and were not in accordance with the evidence nor with the law.

21. This defendant avers that the reasoning upon which the Commission rested its couclusion that the said rates so charged by the defend

ants were unjust and unreasonable, was fallacious and unsound, and was not reasoning which ought to have influenced said Commission, or ought to have led it to the conclusion at which it arrived.

22. This defendant avers that by its charter it is expressly authorized to charge for its transportation of anthracite coal in the State of Pennsylvania, from any point on its line in said State to any other point in said State, the sum of 13 cents per ton per mile for tolls, and 1 cents per ton per mile for transportation. It further avers that the Easton and Amboy Railroad Company, of whose railroad in the State of New Jersey, it is the lessee, is authorized by its charter to carry coal from any point in said State on its line to any other point thereon in said State, at a much larger sum per ton per mile than is allowed to be charged for transportation in Pennsylvania.

It avers that the whole transportation of anthracite coal by it from the coal regions of Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, is done by it over its own line in Pennsylvania, and over the line of said lessor company in the State of New Jersey, and that it is authorized by its own charter and by the charter of said corporation lessor to charge for said transportation the rates above stated per ton per mile, which are greatly in excess of the rate per ton charged by it, which were found by the Commission to be unreasonable and unjust.

23. This defendant is advised by counsel, and therefore avers, that the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce" does not authorize the Commission under such circumstances as were presented by the petition and answer filed with it, and by the evidence taken thereunder, to determine or find that rates such as were charged by this defendant were unreasonable and unjust.

24. This defendant is advised by counsel, and therefore avers, that the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce" does not authorize the said Commission to fix the rates of transportation which shall be charged by railroad corporations.

25. This defendant is advised by counsel, and therefore, avers that the said act does not authorize the said Commission to make the order which it made in this cause, set forth in Exhibit G attached to the present petition.

26. This defendant is advised by counsel, and therefore avers, that the said act does not authorize the Commission to condemn as unreasonable and unjust, nor to regulate or fix the rates of transportation charged by common carriers, so long as said rates are uniform and do not improperly discriminate as between shippers.

27. This defendant is advised by counsel, and therefore avers, that said act does not authorize said Commission to condemn as unreasonable and unjust any general rates charged by a common carrier which are uniform and which do not improperly discriminate as between shippers, and which are not greater than the rate allowed to be charged by the charter of said carrier.

28. This defendant is advised by counsel, and therefore avers, that if said act does permit the said Commission to make order such as the one set forth in the petition filed in this cause, that said act is unconstitutional:

(a) Because it illegally interferes with the common-law rights of common carriers.

(b) Because it violates their chartered rights.

(c) Because the power given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States to regulate commerce among the several States does not