INTERSTATE COMM. COMM. ?. CHICAGO G. W. RY, 11t? ?09 U. a irs?m?nt for Appellant. Mr. L. A. Shaver ancO'Mr. ?. H. C? for ap?t: A M?er m? on Hve s?k t? on i? pr?uc? ? ?n? ? the ?t?al ?e or law t?t the raw-ma? m? ?h?ll not ? M?er than that on the m?uf?t? ?ticle. A demure from t?t ?e is contr? to public ?cy, ? it involv? the d?tmction of ?rge pubic ?res? wMch ?v? ?n b?lt up ?der the ?e. The ?ng of the Hv?k m? ?gher t? the p?uct m? is contr? to the ?m?t ?ive?l p?ti? of ?em t?ou?out the ?t? under wMch the m? on Hve s?k is m?e no M?er, but in ?ny i?s le?, t?n the m? on the pm?d pr?uct. ?e M?er ra? on the Hve st?k t? on the p?uct is ?o?tive of the r?e t?, other tMn? ?ing eq?, v?ue shoed ?n?l or ? taken in? ?count in ra? ?g--the ?cle of M?er v?ue m?ng a M?er ra? t? one of lower v?. ?e c? m?tion is u?a? ?u? it w? ?e for an u?a? p?, ?mely, the b?lding up of the ? ?ver ?ke? at the ex? of the CM?go ?ke?, ?d its natu? ?ndency is ? t?t end. The c?n?d re?tion is ?a?ul ? it w? i?t? by the ?go G?t Westin R?lway ?m?ny ?lely ?th a ?ew of promoting i? o? in,st ?d ?thout m? ? the pubic in?t involved. ?e c? relation is ? ? them w? no 1? ?fima? com?tifion in ra?s n?tating it--the o?y prior ?m?tition ?i? ? the ? of reba?s. ?e cont?t of the ?i?go Gr?t Westin R?way ?m- ?y ?th the ?o? River p?kem is u? ?der the ?Hed "anti-?t" act ? it ?v? t?t company a "mono?ly of a p? of the tr?e or ?mmeme among the ?vcral S?," and, ?, ?a? it is "a controt in re- straint of tr?e and comm? ?ong the ?ve? Sta?." The controt is ?a? ? it w? for the r?ucfion of a m? on the pr?uct claim? ? ? ?y ?e?bly
�
