34 rmnsmn mtrommn.
crimination, if there be such, does not rest on a sound proposition, to-
wit, that the shipping express company cannot respond for the ad-
vances. I do not know how that is. I think, from the statement
made here, that nothing appears in regard to that matter; Is that so ?
Mr. Pollard. I think there is nothing said in regard to the respon-
sibility of the company; but that is a point that will, I think, be con-
ceded.
Thc Court. Very well; the defendant has a perfect right, and that
is my judgment, to refuse to pay charges on shipments made to it by
any express company or any railroad company, unless a sufficient
guaranty in some form is given to it whereby no discrimination may
occur.
Mr. Pollard. I suppose neither of these gentlemen will complain
that this corporation is not responsible?
The Court. I have to take the case as I find it. It is not a ques-
tion of the responsibility of the railroad. If we take them, we have
to take them on the responsibility of the consignor. The part I am
determining, and that is all there is in this case, is that an express
company or a railroad company is not bound to prepay antecedent
charges for anybody. It may or may not. If it chooses to do it for
one company, because it considers it perfectly solvent, it can do it.
If it chooses to doubt the solvency or responsibility of the other com-
pany or shipper, it has a right in the conduct of its affairs so to do.
It is not bound to advance money for anybody. It has a right to
transport goods without prepayment if it chooses,—I mean it is
bound to do it,-but without being compelled to prepay charges.
That is my theory of the administration of the business in this coun-
try, and I shall refuse the injunction. You ask these companies to
advance payment for previous transportation, and they are not bound
to advance anything to anybody.
Mr. Pollard. I understand your honor does not put it on the
ground that it does not appear the complainants are not responsible
for these charges ?
‘ The Court. No; I do not put it on that ground. I put it on this
direct and positive ground: that no common carrier is bound to pay
advances on packages brought to it to be transported thereafter, if it
chooses to object thereto.
Mr. Pollard. Whether it carries for others or not?
The Court. Yes; anybody. That is the proposition I have been
contending for during 30 years, and I have been over it so often
that the older I grow the more positive I am in regard to it.
Mr. Pollard. On that theory, of course, it will be of no use to
· amend the bill.
The Court. Well, you may amend it, and it will be heard in that
form; but I decide it now on the distinct ground that no common
carrier is bound to pay the charges of a prior carrier at all.
Mr. Pollard. That covers the ground. »