REFERENCE TABLE OF SUCH CASES DECIDED IN U. S. SUPREME COURT, OCTOBER TERM, 1900, AND REPORTED HEREIN 742 122-124 779 745 124-126 780 781 782 (See 8. C. Reporter's ed. 1-29.) Interstate commerce-long and short haul 1. See same case below, 39 C. C. A. 413, 99 Fed. Rep. 52. Statement by Mr. Justice White: *The Board of Trade of Chattanooga, Ten-[8] unjust discrimination effect of competi-nessee, a chartered corporation, petitioned tion-investigation of facts by court. the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief under the Act to Regulate Commerce. The defendants, the East Tennessee, Virginia, & Georgia Railway, and numerous other rail and steamship companies, were alleged to be common carriers subject to the Act to Competition which is actual and substantial in its effect upon rates, if resulting from the action of other carriers who are subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce, may produce the dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions provided in 4 of the act, so as to en-Regulate Commerce, and engaged in the able a carrier in adjusting rates to take into view such competition without the previous assent of the Interstate Commerce Commis sion. 2. The discrimination in favor of competitive not an undue or unjust discrimination pro- 3. 8. On application to the courts to enforce an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which is based on an erroneous construction of the statute, by reason of which error it has declined adequately to find the facts, vestigation of the facts which should have been passed upon by the Commission, but will correct the error of law committed by that body, and, after doing so, dismiss the application without prejudice to the right of the Commission to make a further investigation the courts will not proceed to an original In of the facts. [No. 175.] Argued February 26, 27, 1900. transportation of passengers and freight by all rail, or partly by rail and water, from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other places on the eastern seaboard to Chattanooga, Nashville, and Memphis, in the state of Tennessee. It was alleged that the defendants conyeyed freight from the eastern seaboard, through and beyond Chattanooga, to the cit ies of Nashville and Memphis for a lesser rate to such long-distance points than was charged by them for like freight to Chattanooga, the shorter distance. This, it was averred, was a violation of 4 of the act, prohibiting a greater charge for the shorter than for the longer haul, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions. And the disregard of the statute in the particular just stated, it was asserted, necessarily gave rise to violations of other provisions of the Act to *Regulate Commerce; viz., of § 1, [8] which forbids unjust and unreasonable charges, and of § 3, making unlawful the giving of undue or unreasonable preferences. It is unnecessary to consider the complaint Decided of the lesser charge to Memphis, the longer, than to Chattanooga, the shorter, distance, |