The Brookhaven leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1883-1891, 1888-03-01
INTERSTATE DECISION.
The Interstate Ipmmissinn Decides
Against Disrrirn ssiAtions III Favor ~ the
Standard Ou COMPANY,

The Interstate Ieusnssinn Decides
Against Disrrin STATIONS III Favor ~ the
Standard ou Company,
WAsHiSGruN, Feb 24-Thc 1uter-Sta
Commerce Commission yesterday pramHI-
gated an elaborate OPINION in the case OF
George Rire, IL Marietta, o.. against the
Louisville q Nashville and several other
railroads, charging, among other things,
discrimination IN favor Of the Standard Oil
Company. The opinion SAYS:
Compliments method OF shipment was in
odrrcls This was the only method for which
any OF the defendants supplied rolling stock to
their patrons The Louisville Nashville and
the Cincinnati. New Orleans b Texas Pacific
Companies had each few tank cars, but the
tanks upon them were owned by the Standard
OIL Company, OF Kentucky, and they were not
obtainable by other parties desiring to ship oil
in bulk by tank cars. They could only do so by
procuring and rendering to the rutlroad compa
MES the cars for transportation The defend.
ants by their rate sheets gave ratios on oil in
barrels and TO many towns but not all, on oil
in tanks also Generally the rates on oil in
tanks we're car rates. but in some cases they
were by the 100 pounds. The rate sheets gave
no information as TO how tank cars were TO be
obtained.
The Commission decides that It was the duty
of defendants 70 publish information on this
subject with their rate sncCts and that they did
not fully give the information regarding rates
which the act to regulate commerce intends
shall be placed before the public, unless they
did so. IL i obvious that instead OF the defend.
ants Offering two methods OF transportation
which are open to the acceptance OF all, they
offer only one which is so open. The other is
offered on such terms that I. can by no possibil-
ity be accepted only by parties who can control
considerable capital and who will supply for
themselves an Important part Of the means Of
transportation and also supply terminal facili-
ties. The man Of small means who adopts the
meth0gs OF transportation in barrels can not be
sal" TO do so Of choice when the failure of the
carrier to supply for the other the customary
means Of transportation compels him TO do so.
II does not seem to US either just or plausible
10 say under such circumstances that the err
son whose oil is carried in barrels has voluntar-
ily chosen that method ard has no concern with
the charges imposed on his competitor
who adopted the other. He is, on tie
contrary, vitality concerned with those
Charges, and II his own are
not to be gagged in some degree by them he
may be ruined in his business without redress,
even though the charges he pays when conaid-
cred by themselves may not seem unreasonable
The Commission lays down the general rule
that the tank Is TO be considered part OF the
car itself aud for whatever is carried on II the
charge ought TO he the same by the hundred
rels OF oil in car load lots III other cars Even
then the shipper In barrels is at some disadvan-
tage, Tor h. l--,t pay freight on the baskets as
wen as on the oil. but this, as between him and
the carrier IS not unjust, This ruling does not
preclude such allowance Tor the use OF tank cars
as is customary, provided it be reasonable, but
il assumes that such allowance Will be made
But il shonld be made on some system by some
rule of uniformity, and the authority to make it
must not Careicssly or otherwise be made "a
means of discrim nation.
The case of each of the defendants was
then considered separately, and in the case
of the Louisville q Nashville railway an
order was entered that defendants
cease their unjust discrimination, that
they cease to make tank rates when the
tanES differ in capacity. and that they con-
form their charges on tank car and barrel
shipments to the rule above prescribed
In the case Of the st. Louis, Iron Noun
tain 4 Southern railroad the Commission
finds that the defendant made excessive
rates On barrel shipments and that the ef.
feet was to unJustly discriminate against
complainant and to give undue and unreas-
enable preference 10 shippers by tank cars.
Order was entered that its charges be cor
rected and made to conform TO thG rule.
In the other three cases, the Mobile 4.
OHIO, Mississippi q. Tennessee aud Illinois
Central, no oEgors were entered