Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-02-27


body several weeks since, submit four propositions
which they claim, are established beyond all cavil
or contradiction" These propositions are, that
citizens Of other States are allowed 10 transport
freight for less than is charged the citizens of
New YoIk; that citizens Of certain localities Of
that State are charged more than citizens Of
certain other localities thatseitizens Of their State
are at times entirely debarred from sending freight
for the reason that Rll oonveniences cars, &c. are
occupied in the transportation of through freight
and that all losses incurred In the transportation Of
through freighs at less than paying rates are not
only made up but large profits are secured by
eXtravagaut rates charged the citizens Of the
State
Now the question Of the right Of the Legislature
to prescribe rules and regulations for the govern
ment Of railroads may be open to discussion, but
we let that pass, sati fed that the absurdy of the
bill lately introduced into the Legislature at Co
lumbus, to prescribe definite rates Of transporta-
tlon for freight upon the railroads Of the State,
will be apparent to every business man.
The Railroad Company is composed of stock
holders who are supposed to look out FOR their
own interests. These stockholders elect their
officers who will work for the interests of the road
It clearly is not to be expected that they will es
tabsh a tariff so high as to tend to drive trade
from their road. neither will they be likely to re-
duce il 10 30 low figure as to prove a loss TO the
road II State Legislature can establish one
price or rate, they can another if they can fix one
maximum price Of transportation, the next As
sombly may reduce that maximum pice and
finally, the people of State may, If they choose,
send to the Legislature men who viii fix this rate
50 low that no road can comply with the statute
and live
Now as to the point at issue in the New York
pro rata measure, the discrimination between local
and through rates, aud it necessity as claimed by
the Railroad interests. That there is such dis
elimination is fixed fact, and here, as in every
other branch Of trade and commerce, the nature
Of the case requires that there should be. The
citizen Of Rochester aud Syracuse complains that
he must pay the same transportation upon barrel
of -four or salt to New York or Buffalo as does the
citizen Of one Of those termini in sending his goods
to the other, and they claim that all rates should be
uniform.
This question of pro,rata originated with the
Erie Canal and it is chiefly question between the
Canal interest and the Railroad interest. The
former brings up instances in which freights have
blen carried over the Central Road at rates that
would be ralnOus to the Canal, and at which even
the Railroad suffer loss and they then make their
strongest point, that which will tell most eectually
upon the roral inhabitants, in the statement that
to make these losses good the local rates must be
kept up.
But they judge unfairly in proving these state
ments by instances, and not by aggregates. Be
cause single consignment has been carried by
railroad below cost, it does not follow that tho
road is losing money. This fault aud this unfair.
ness unJeres all the proof brought forward by the
petitioners.
In the next place, 1t is shown on good authority
that the Canal authorities have within the past
year made as great or greater discrimination be-
tween local and through points than the Central
Railroad ever did. This has been shown by actual
figures from their agents and tariffs.
Again, the discrimination may work as faVorably
for the shippers at Rochester or Syracuse as for
foreign shippers. For instance, while the salt deal
er at Syracuse pays local rates upon the Central
Road within his own State, he has the benefit of
through rates outside OF it. He consigns 1000
barrels Of salt to house in st. Louis. He pays
local rates upon the Central to Buffalo, but he then
has the benefit of through rates to St. Louis The
shipper of produce at Columbus pays more in
proportion. to Cleveland, than he who ships from
Cincinnati, but ho has the benefit of through rates
to New York or Boston.
The Committee say in their report that "the
total construction, expense of the road, machinery
and repairs. charged to the local business Of the
road, while foreign business. or business beyond
the terminus is not charged with any portion Of
these expenses, consequently foreign business is
regarded as that which costs comparatively moth
ing and the price of its transportation nearly nett
gain" Such arguments amount TO nothing in
reality, for what difference will it make in the bal
ance sheet of a merchants account whether he
charges the running expenses of his store salaries
Of his clerks &c, to the silk sales, and puts his
broadcoth receipts down as clear gain. or divides
the expenses between the tWol
But this very argument is one in favor of a
discrimination, for they allow that the receipts
from through transportation are nearly nett gain.
This of course leaves Q portion, however small,
to be devoted to the expense account. Now, if
the pro-rata measure is adopted, this through
business must be cut Off and the local trade must
pay all the expenses, to do which the locll rates
must be increased rather than diminished. It is
hardly probable that the petitioners ere blind
enough to suppose the way rates will be lowered
to the present through rates should the law pass.
The other grand question for citizens of New
&,
the New York Roads IN favor Of the Grand Trunk.
Pennsylvania Central, and Baltimore & Ohio
Roads" is one that is easily answered in the affirm
ative when it is known that at this very time the
Grand Trunk is contracting for freight from Gin
Cinnati TO Liverpool for Cighy cents per hundred.
If they can do this now, they will not be behind
in successful competition for western treights if
the New York Roads are compelled to raise their
rates. But this point is not of so much interest
to Ohio shippers as is the question Of the consti
tutonality Of the measure. The Constitution
provides for free commerce and trade between
the States. Chief Justice Marshall in the steam.
boat case of Ogden vs.. Gibbon, uses the following
language, with more to the same purport:
"If State government has no power to tax
commerce or transportation carried on within her
borders, on the common highways or navigable
rivers of its jurisdiction, does the power exist to
tax the same commerce or trade when carried on
our railroads, plank-rosds and turnpikes, con-
structed for public use by the government; or,
in ether words does the State, by authorizing the
right Of way Of way over its soil to be improved
by private capital and enterprise, for the purpose
Of facilitating the operations of commerce and
intercourse, acquire monopoly of the right of
way thus improved Z" "a
This question our Western shippers to Eastern
markets are interested in, and Justice Mclean has
held similar language. 400.
There Is an argument used by the citizens along
/ the line NJ the New York railroads in favor Of n