Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1888-09-27
A RAILROAD DECISION.
The Interstate Commission Makes an I'M
portant Decision-The Law Was Enacted
for the People, Not for the Railroads.

The Interstate Commission Makes an I'M
portant Decision-The Law Was Enacted
for the People, Not for the Railroads.
WASHINGTON, Sept eg-The Interstate
Commission yesterday, through Chairman
Cooley, fled an opinion in uhe matter Of the
Chicago. ST Paul S Kansas City Railroad Com
pany. This company In Jnne last notified the
Commission that owing to the action Of COM
peting lines COVERING rates between Chicago
and ST. Paul and Minneapolis, it had been
obliged to reduce its own rates between those
points below the rates which il could afford to
accept to intermediate points, so that upon its
line there would be greater charges made upon
the shorter haul than upon the longer in the
same direction and II stated that II complaint
should be made Of this il would undertake to
justify its action under the law. The Commis
sion therefore made an order for hearing to
be had at Dubuque. at which this company
would be called upon to justify its action, so
that other companies interested and also any
commercial organizations, or any other party
desiring to be heard, might have the opportuni-
ty. A hearing was accordingly had, and on the
hearing the respondent company gave evidence
tending to show that the &C ton it had taken
was forced upon II by the Burlington & North
ern Railroad Company, which had mad, a rate
between Chicago. St Paul and Minneapolis. be-
low that which would be compensatory and be-
low which it is impossible for any competing
line. to make without actual loss, and ii pro-
duced evidence tending strongly to show that
the Burlington & Northern on the rates 10 was
making was not paying operating expenses. The
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Company also
appeared and offered similar evidence, taking
similar position 20 that of the respondent oom-
pany. The Burlington & Northern. on the
other hand, was represented by its general
officers and insisted that its rates were remu-
nerative and showed that il was accepting them
without making at any points the greater
charges upon the shorter haul. The evidence
that its receipts were sufficient to cover operat
irg expenses was not very strong, and II clearly
appeared that for the current year 1t was fall
ing behind.
The respondent company insisted that the
Commission should either sanction the rates il
was making to the intermediate stations be-
tween its termini which were rates fair IL
themselves, OF that it shSaiu oraer the Bur
hngton s. Ne-s.norn TO increase its rates be-
tween Chicago and St. Paul and Minneapolis so
as to make them just and reasonable to the car
riers themselves as well as the public; in other
words, to make them fairly remunerative, and
it was insisted that the provision of the Inter
State Commerce law that all charges shall be
reasonable and just, was not complied with un-
less they were reasonable and just considered
from the standpoint Of the railroad company as
Well as that OF the general public. The Bur
lington Northern, il was therefore contended,
was in constant violation Of the Interstate
Commerce law in making rates SO low that
neither itself nor its rivals could accept them
without a steady and destructive drain upon
their resources. The principal question therefore
raised before the Commission at the hearing was
whether it had the power to compel the Bur
lington s. Northern to increase its rates to
munerative point, If they were found below that
point. The question is discussed in the opinion.
The Commission dsclaimS possessing any such
power. 1t holds tina Congress, in the provision
requiring all rates to be reasonable and just,
was legislating for the protection of the general
public and not for the protection Of railroad
companies against the actions OF their own
managers or against the unreasonable competi-
ton Of rivals and that it was never in the con-
temptation of Congress that it should be within
the power Of the Commission to order an in
crease IN rates which, in its own opinion ought
to have been made higher than they were. The
further question was discussed whether the
fact whether the Burlington & Northern
made rates which were unreasonably low made
under similar circumstances AMI conditions
as related in the fourth section OF the act.
The respondent contended that If the Commis-
sion could not control the making of destruct-
i've rates the competition of railroads. which
were subject to the act to regulate commerce,
was Just as harmful as was the competition Of
vessels OF Ine competition OF rallrO1uS not SUP
ject to the act and. therefore, the competition
OF the Burlington s. Northern at the terminal
points of respondents road established such
dissimilar Circumstances and conditions as JUS
titled its charging less ut such terminal points
thar ut intermediate stations. The Commission
does not assent to this view. The showing OF
respondent is merely that a perverse rival
makes unreasonaby low rates to the terminal
of its road, but if this makes out the dissipllar
circumstances and conditions intended by the
fourth section of the act then any one RAILROAD
manager in the Northwest may at pleasure by
foolish tariff sheet give to one or more points
of railroad competition a preference and ad-
vantage over all others.
The effect OF the doctrine contended for on
the part of the respondent would be that rail-
road companies if they choose to do so, may at
will build up single point in the Northwest to
O preponderating and conclusive ascendancy at
the expense of all others. The question Of
what are just and fair rates is always relative.
Low rates to one place may not be just and fair
if still lower rates are given to a rival. The
Commission. therefore, finds and adjudges that
the transporting of freights by respondent upon
its road from Chicago to st. Paul. Minneapolis
and Minnesota transfers and from such
Northern termini to Chicago is made under sub
stantially similar circumstances and conditions
to those which like freights are transported on
the same line from the same initial point or
points in the same direction to intermediate
stations, and, such being the case, that the
greater charge> which respondent makes TO
such intermediate stations are illegal. An order
will be entered that respondent cease and de-
sist from making such illegal charges.