Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1884-08-21
DECISION RENDERED.

Il Decision OF the Commissioners in the
Case of Pinney, AIudd & Co. VS.. the san
Francisco Railroad Company.
The following is a summary of the de-
cisiOn:
This case was decided on May 9th in IA
favor of the complainant, but on June 9th
the railroad company asked for a re-hear-
ing, claiming to have new evidence. The
request was granted, and the company fur
ther responded with a copy of the bills of
lading and Way-bills upon which the ship
ments were made, OVeTcharges upon which
is the subject matter OF complaint, and an
argument against the power of this Board
to interfere in the matter on account of the
interstate nature of the traffic.
The facts are briefly as follows: Complain
ant shipped from De Kalb, H., via Kansas
City to FredOnia, Kan, one car of barbed
wire, weight D, 400 pounds. The shipment
was made over the Chicago & North western,
and Southern Kansas railroads. from De
Kalb to CherryYale, in Kansas and at the
latter point delivered to the respondent
company to be hauled to Fredonia, a dis
lance Of q miles. The charges of the first
two companies for carriage of the freight
from De Kalb to CherryVale was $122 90;
and the respondents charge for the thirty
seven mile haul, 500. so. This last ship
ment was made in March and April last,
and few days thereafter a like shipment
was made, by the same parties, over the
same railroads, with like results as to
charges, viz: weight of freight 26, $40 pounds;
charges to CherryVale $I15 81; from Cherry
vale to FredOnia over respondent road $72-
So
It will be seen that, although the goods
were shipped from De Kalb., to FredOnia,
Kansas, the freight was subject to cOndi-
uOns OF local freight tariffs. Upon these
facts the respondent company still main
tains that this Is such Interstate traffic, the
regulation of the charges upon which,
within It's own territory, the State is ex-
Guided from.
The rate charged upon these two ship
ments from CherryYale to FredOna is TWEEN
ty-seven cents. The company's local rate
between the same points is thirteen cents
per 100 pounds.
The theory of respondent company is
that upon all shipments or freight into the
State from another State the people of the
State to which the freight is brought are
utterly pOWerless to defend themselves
against any oppressive and unjust discrim-
atoms that either rapacity or VindictiYeness
might impose. If such were the case, it
would argue that the Government had
been grossly derelict in its duty towards
those whose protection was its primary OBJ
ject. But there is no Constitutional prOvi-
sion, nor any law or authoritative Judicial
utterance that gives any cOuntenanCe to
such conclusion.
But in the case Ofshipments now under
consideration, and shipments of a like
character, a regulation of charges for haul
made within the State, such charges form
ing no part OF any through rate from a
place in another State, can in no way, nor
| to the slightest degree effect either the peO-
/ pie or commerce of any other State Not
/ only is such regulation free from constitu-
/ tiOnal objection, but it would still be free
! if it trenches close to the line dividing
/ State and National jurisdictions III respect
/ to commerce.
! We can reach no other conclusion than
/ that the charges made by the company
/ upon the shipments referred to were
unlaWfulIy excessive, and that the excess,
/ the amounts of which have been al
ready stated, should be refunded to the
| shippers.
The purpose of the company in levying
| such extraordinary charges upon ship
ments OF this character would have been
| obvious, even if the Company's General
/ Freight Agent had not disclosed the fact
insshis response to these complaints of the
! 24th of May. 1t was to cOerce shipments to
\ the cOmpany's line from a longer dis
lance. Now, while railway companies
/ may Iegitimately strive with each other
/ for business, no company possess the right
/ to int1ict penalties by way of excessive and
! discriminate freight charges against persons
| who exercise an undOubted right to patron
ize another road. Such conduct on the part
of a railroad company operating in this
/ State, subjects it to statutory penalties; and
/ if no statute existed on the subject, it would
! still violate the plain and just principles of
! the common law of the land.
! In accordance with the opinion herein
expressed, the board find and decide
that the excess of charges made upon
! these shippers was unreasonable, and that
! the amounts should be refunded to the
! shippers.
We also think they involve an unlawful
! discrimination. We, therefore, request re-
! spOndent company to refund to the ship
! pers the amounts of the OVer-charge in &C
| cOrdance with this decision, within thirty
Gays from the date hereof.