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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

In equity.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION vs. THE GEORGIA RAILroad Company.

The Georgia Railroad Company, in pursuance of the order passed in the above-stated case, shows as cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted as follows, to wit:

I.

This defendant respectfully demurs to said petition and, as cause of said demurrer, says that section 3 of the act to regulate commerce, upon which section the petition is founded, has no application to such facts as are set out in the petition.

II.

Without prejudice to its aforesaid demurrer, this defendant, answering said petition, adopts as a part of this its answer, the answer (with the exhibit thereto), which this respondent made before the Interstate Commerce Commission in the case of William H. Heard versus The Georgia Railroad Company, February 28, 1889, which said answer (with the exhibit thereto), is annexed to the petition in this cause as Exhibit F.

Further answering, this defendant says, that the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which this present proceeding seeks to enforce, was rendered by said Interstate Commerce Commission under the following circumstances:

The petition and answer, upon which the hearing before said Commission was held, raised no issue, except as to the condition of the car complained of, its appointments, accommodations, and close connection with the smoking car, as will fully appear by reference to Exhibits E and F of the petition in this cause.

Nevertheless the Interstate Commerce Commission, without requiring the pleadings to be amended, and over the objection of this defendant, and without allowing this defendant a postponement to procure testimony upon a question not raised by the pleadings, entered upon the investigation of the conduct of the conductor and white passengers, heard a mass of false testimony which the defendant, if opportunity had been

given it, could have easily refuted before any impartial tribunal, and rendered judgment against the defendant under circumstances abhorrent to judicial methods and traditions. In this connection this defendant refers to the following language on page 13 of Exhibit G of the pending petition, (page 69 of pamphlet), to wit:

We have held that this required us to report and to act upon a violation of the statute, discovered by evidence before us in an investigation, although it had not been the subject of complaint in the petition.

IV.

Wherefore, this defendant denies that it was ever duly impleaded in the controversy upon which the order now sought to be enforced was issued; and denies that it ever had its day in court (if the Interstate Commerce Commission be a court) in said controversy, or that it ever had a fair, just, and impartial hearing in said controversy, according to the universal established usage of the courts of the land.

V.

Finally, this defendant says: It was not at the time of the filing of the petition in this honorable court, and is not now subjecting colored passengers to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, in violation of the act to regulate commerce.

That it does now, and did at the time of the filing of the petition, furnish to all passengers paying the same fare, cars substantially equal, and substantially as well provided with comforts and accommodations for travelers;

That it does now furnish, and has ever furnished the equal protection required by law alike to white and colored passengers.

And having fully answered, this defendant prays to be hence dismissed, etc.

Jos. B. CUMMING,
GEORGIA HILLZER,
Defendant's Solicitors.

I, Jos. B. Cumming, counsel for the defendant, the Georgia Railroad Company, do certify that the foregoing demurrer is well founded in law.

Jos. B. CUMMING,
Defendant's Solicitor.

Charles H. Phinizy, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the acting general manager of the Georgia Railroad Company, and that the foregoing demurrer of said company is not interposed for delay. C. H. PHINIZY.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of December, 1891. IRWIN ALEXANDER, Deputy Clerk U. S. Circuit Court, Southern District, Georgia.

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.