Omaha daily bee., 1883-02-26
RAILROAD REBATES.
Decision by the Iowa Commissioners
In q Case Involving the Question.

Dns "olNkS, Iowa, reDruary 20
The board Of railroad commissioners
this afternoon gave their decision In .
case involving the question of dlscrim.
nation and rebates. The trustees of
Red Oak township complained that q
combination of grain buyers exists In
Montgomery county at different rail.
road stations with the Chicago, Bur-
liugton & Quincy railroad; that the
grain buyers are bound together by
promises, pledges and penalties, to ship
all grain over the Chicago, Burling.
ton and Quincy road, and the railroad
company bind themselves to give the
members of the association better fa-
cillties and commissions and rebates
than are given to persons outeide of
the association. The board notified the
railroad company of the complaint, and
have secured all the facts In the
case on both sides. The board say
the question comes under section ii
of the acts Of the seventeenth general
assembly, creating the board Of rail.
way commissioners, aud which pro.
vides that railway companies shall de-
nand and receive for the %transpor,a.
tlon of persons and property the same
rate per ton per mile upon like condi-
ttons and under similar circumstances.
Thomas j. Potter, general manager Of
the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
road, says the charge hat q rate IL
given the association which would be
denied under similar circumstances Ia
not correct. The board say this case
raiaes q fair construction Of the stst.
ute. A technical construction would
render 1t useless az far as pre-.
venting determinations IL con.
oerned, because circumstances are
never quite the same with regard
to shipments. An association may be
able to offer more than an individual
of q given product of q special indus.
try and no good reason exists for get.
ting q lower rate than should ba Civ
en- to the individuals who can Iff.r
the carrier less goods or the same pro.
ducts In the same line of business.
The association may own elevators
that have cost considerable capital to
build, and the railroads require ELF.
v~ators; but that is not q good reason
why an individual who does not own
an elevator should pay more for trans
portation, If he loads without delay.
The theory Of, the law Is that 1t should
cost about the same for like distances,
giving to parallel roads about what
produce grows or Is prepared for mar
ket on Its tributary territory. The
capacity of all roads to move freight
10 equal to the requirement for 1t.
From the standpoint of the carriers In
terest It Is needless to make q rate
lees than what ia fair and reasonable.
From the shippers standpoint, the
rate should not b. more than fair and
reasonable. When such arrangements
exists for moving the crops to market
tn give rebate to IN individual gives
him an advantage owe other shippers
that he has no right to. When re.
bates are given to an association of
shippers that are AeEied to an indi-
vidusl, 1t puts him ut . disadvantage
In purchasing, and tends to the en-.
couragsment of monopolies, resulting
Ia nelghborhood dissatisfaction. Like
conditions and circumstances seem to
be applicable to all shippers made In
the usual course of business arising as
above described, where q shipper
loading from an elevator OF
side track should expect the same
rates. There is no good reason why
a farmer or merchant should not get
the same rate as an elevator man gets,
provided he loads substantially In the
same time. Grain is nearly all sent
to market through elevators, and the
investment in elevators has sufi isn't
advantages over side.track loaders
without rebates. They do not believe
that the law requiring like rates under
like conditions and circumstances
justifies determinations between own.
ers of elevators and other shippers.
In this case they recommend that like
charges be made where not less than
full carload lots are offered at the
same station, and If any concessions
or drawbacks be given they should be
open to all shippers Offering freight Of
the same class In the same line OF
business,