and by rail, to Los Angeles, from which point distribution is made to other points inland and to the East.

That Los Angeles over all of said lines is an intermediate, although recognized as a terminal station, and the haul to San Bernardino over either or all of said lines constitutes a longer haul than the haul to Los Angeles; that neither of said companies was mentioned in the complaint filed before the Interstate Commerce Commission, neither was or is either one of them bound by said order, the enforcement of which is sought by this proceeding, and to enforce said order of the Interstate Commerce Commission against those defendants would be to subject them to an undue and unreasonable disadvantage in the carrying of freight by reason of the remaining transcontinental lines not being subjected to the same order and rule and the same charges for transportation to like common points, and that the enforcement of said order would impose additional burdens upon these defendants and upon their traffic, and give to said competing lines of road not subject to the jurisdiction of this court in this action undue advantage in the handling and transportation of through freight, merchandise, and general traffic by giving them additional compensation for transporting such freight from Los Angeles to San Bernardino, which would be denied to these defendants by the enforcing of said order.

Wherefore, having fully answered, these defendants ask that the petition be dismissed, and that they go hence without day.

W. C. HAZELDINE,

A. BRONSON,

Attorneys for all Defendants, except Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railroad Co.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

In equity.-No. 28.

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

To the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting in equity within and for the eastern district of Pennsylvania:

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 Lehigh Valley Railroad Company 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, and that the said railroad company 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 by its railroad, extending through several of the United States by continuous carriage, and particularly was it then engaged in such business 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, and as such common carrier was during all the time aforesaid and still is subject to the provisions of the said act entitled "An act to regulate commerce" and said amendments thereto. That the said defendant was heretofore, to wit, on the 19th day of October, 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 Eckley B. Coxe, Alexander B. Coxe, Henry B. Coxe, and the said Eckley B. Coxe and Alexander B. Coxe, executors of Charles B. Coxe, deceased, then and now 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 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 by the said petition on file in the office of the said Commission, and 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 26th day of October, 1888, said petition was amended as by stipulation 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, on the 18th day of January, 1889, the complainant advised the Commission that certain railroad companies other than the defendant in their said petition named were specially interested in the questions involved therein, as at large and more fully appears in and by their communication of that date, 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 18th day of January, 1889, in view of the statements in said last-named exhibit made and in consideration thereof, the said Commission, at a general session thereof, held at the city of Washington on that day, made an order thereon, as at large and more fully appears in and by the same 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 D, which said order of the said Interstate Commerce Commission was thereafterwards duly served upon the different railroad companies therein mentioned, and upon the said Albert Fink, Trunk Line commissioner, but none of the companies mentioned in said order availed themselves of the liberty to appear and join in the defense to said petition, as in and by said order they were permitted to do.

That on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1888, the said Lehigh Valley Railroad Company filed its answer to the above-named petition of the said Coxe Brothers & Co., 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 E.

That thereafterwards, the said cause being at issue upon the pleadings aforesaid, duly came on for investigation and hearing before the said Interstate Commerce Commission, duly and legally assembled for that purpose, at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on the 7th day of February, 1889, when the said complainant, the said Coxe Brothers & Co., as well as the said defendant, the Lehigh Valley Railroad 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 herein before 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 de fendant 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 attor neys, 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