Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-21
INTERSTATE COMMERCE..
4 Decision in Relation TO the Traffic
on the Richmond anG
DanVtIIe Road.
IHy telegraph to no Dispatchl


WASHINGTON, February 2o.-The In
tcr-State Commerce Comm ssiOn to-day
fled an opinion, by Chairman Cooley,
in the case OF the complaint of the Com
mlttee on Transportation of the Danvllle
WaD Chamber of Commerce against the
Richmond and Danville Railroad Com
pany. The complaint contained mum
Der Of charges, the chief of which were
that it made excessive charges, that 1t
Disseminated in its charges against the
merchants and traders Of Richmond,
Lynchburg, and Charlottesville, and
especially that it Disseminated by re
fusing to give to the merchants and
traders at Danville in respect to mer-
chandise purchased 10y them at Rich
mond and other points through rates
from point of purchase to the point at
which they might make sale thereof.
Elaborate proofs were taken in the case,
and the commission finds a number OF
instances Of excessive charges to be made
ont In respect to such charges, the
parties paying them were not represented
i'm the case before the commission, nut II
was shown that so far as the rates we're
found to be erroneous they bad been
corrected, and if Oyercharged had not
been repaid The party in each case was
entitled to have repayment on demand.
Through rates to Danville from both
directions were complained OF, but the
commission holds that in 50 far as the
rates are made by other companies, with
out the participation OF the defendant
the defendant does not charge itself win
any responsibility therefor by merely
giving rates in addition to It's own to any
one who asks for through rates. The
commission also holds that the justice OF
local rates cannot be determined by com
harrison of them with the rates charged
on long through lines upon which
froiobts are carried for long distances IN
great volume and at relatively very much
less expense than like irelghts can De
carried when moved in less quantities
and for comparatively short distances.
To present the ground for the charge
Of discrimination in favor of Richmond
os against Danyille an Illustrative
instance may be taken. The DahVliie
merchant claimed that in case he bought
,,s,cbandise in Richmond and shipped
# 10 Danyille and then sold 1t to Colds,
boro' and other points further on ana
sbinped il to such point, he should have
thronob rates on the merchandise from
RICHMOND 10 the point OF final destiha-
t;on and unless he was gwen such
tbronoh rates he was at disadvantage
in competition with Richmond merchants
in making sales to the same point me
r 20 i company concede through
r ate when a Danville merchant makes
b I; sb;nment direct from Richmond to
his nlace of sale, but refuses to DO so
uben the shipment is first TO DanSiile
on "a them the second shipment made to
49, a. po;nt of sale. The commission holds
.hst in the case supposed the railroad
c am, be compelled TO give the same
ran" for two shipments that il gives when
there ' is one only. The fact that us re-
town or adversely to another uoes , not
charge cG"n il with unjust discrimination,
g STho determination must consist IN dong
tor or allowing 10 one party OF pace
IIr ~ Sonied to another; it cannot be
red of action which IN l'Sen Is
impartial --