The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-24
INTERSTATE COMMERCE..
Ruling Concerning the Carriage of Oil in
Tank Cars and in Barrels.

Ruling Concerning the Carriage OF Oil in
Tank Cars and in Barrels
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23.-The Interstate com
merce Commission to-day promulgated an elab-
crate opinion in the case Of George Rice, Of
Marietta, Ohio, against the Louisville & Nash
ville and several other railroads, charging,
among other things. discrimination in favor of
the Standard Oil Company. The opinion says:
''Thas COMPLIMENTS method of shiprfent
in barrels This the only method for
which any of the defendants supplied rolling
stock to their patrons. The Louisville & Nash
vile, and the Cincinnati. New Orleans 81 Texas
Paci ic companies had each few tank-cars bnt
the tanks upon them were owned by the Stand
Ard Oil Company, of Kentucky, and they were
not OBJ ainable by other parties desiring to ship
oil in bulk by tankcars. They could only do so by
procuring and rendering to the railroad compa-
ny the cars for transportation. The defendants
by their rate-eheets gave rates on oil In barrels,
and 10 many towns, but not ALL on oil in tanks
also. Generally the rates on the trans pbrtaton
of oil in tanks were car rates. but in some cases
they were by the hundred pounds. The rate
sheets gave no information as to how tank
TO be obtained. The commission decides
that it was the duty of defendants to publish in
formation this subject with their rate sheets,
and that they did not fully give the information
regarding rates which the act to regulate com
merce intends shall be placed before the public
unless they did 1t is obvious that instead
of the defendants offering two methods Of
transp ortation which are open to the accept
nnce of all, they offer only which is
so open. The other is offered on such terms
that it can by no possibility be accepted only by
parties who can control a considerable capital
and who viii supply for themselves an i'm portant
part of the means of transportation, and also
supply terminal facilities. The man of small
means who adopts the methods of transportation
In barrels cannot be said TO do of choice,
when the failure of the carrier to supply for the
other the customary means OF transportation
compels him to DO so. 1t does not seem to
ei,her just or plausible to say, under such cir
cumstances. that the person whose oil
is carried in barrels has volun-
tarily chosen that method and has no concern
with the charges imposed on his competitor who
adopted the other He is on the contrary. viral-
ly concerned with those charges, and il his own
not TO he gagged in some degree by them. he
may be ruined in his business without redress
even though the charges he pays. when consid-
cred by themselves, may seem not unreasonable
The commission lays down the general rule that
the tank is TO be considered part of the it
self, and. for whatever is carried in it, the
charge ought to be the same by the hundred
pounds as is made on the TRANSPORTATION OF bar
rels Of oil in carload lots in other cars. Even
then she shipper in barrels is at some disad-
vantage for he must pay freight on the casks
well the oil; but this as between him and
the carrier. Is not unjust
This ruling does not preclude such allowance
for the use OF tank-cars is customary, pro-
vided it be reasonable, but it assumes that such
allowance will be made. But it should be made
on some system, by some rule of uniformity.
and the authority to make IL must not carelessly
or otherwise be made a means of discrimin alton"
The case of each of the defendants then
considered separately and in the case OF the
Louisville & Nashville railroad order was
tered that defendants their unjust dis
elimination. that they cease TO make tank rates
when the tanks differ in capacity, and that they
conform their charges tank car and barrel
shipments to the rule above prescribed.
In the case Of the ST. Louis, Iron Mountain g.
Southern railroad the commission finds that the
defendant made excessive rates on barrel ship
ments aud the effect was to uniustly discrimi-
nate against complainant aud to give undue and
unreasonable preference to shippers by tank
An order was entered that its charges be
corrected and made TO conform to the rule.
In the other three cases, the Mobile a. Ohio,
the Mississippi q Tennessee, and the Illinois
Central no orders were entered. The commits
sion states that while the questions raised by
she charges are important. they scarcely receive
any attention, either in the taking OF the evil
deuce or in the arguments which were made
behalf OF the complainant A decision upon
them would affect other parties quite MS much