The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1888-09-28
a RAILROAD DECISION.

A RAILROAD DECISION.
The Interstate Connlssaon Makes N In
Portaat Decisisn-Ths Law Wa Enacted
for the People. Not for the Railroads.
WA1MIN0tON. Sept 0-The Interstate
Commission yesterday, through Chairman
Cooley, fled IN opinion IN the matter Of the
Chicago. St. Paul 4 Kansas City Railread Com
pany. TINS company in Jnne last notified the
Communion that owing to the action Of COM
pettng lines coverinx rates between Chicago
and 81. Paul and Minneapolis, II had been
obliged to reduce It's own rates between those
points below the rates which 1t could afford to
accept to intermediate points, 20 that upon IL
line there would b greater charges made upon
the shorter haul than upon the longer In the
same direction, and II stated that II complaint
shouid be made Of this II would undertake to
justify it, action under the law. The Commits
sion therefore made IN order for hearing to
be had ut Dubuque, ct which this company
would be called upon 70 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-
y. A hearing was accordingly had. ami on the
hearing the respondent company gave evidence
tending to show that the action IL hsd taken
was forced upon Il by the Burlington North
ern Railroad Company, which had made rate
low that which would be compensatory and be-
low which 1t II impossible for any competing
lines to mako without actual loss, and Il pro
duced evidence tending strongly to show that
the Burlington Northern on the rates IL was
making was not paying operating expensea The
Chicago, Milwaukee & st. Paul Company also
appeared and offered similar evidence, taking .
similar position to that Of tho respondent com
pany. The Burlington q Northern. ON the
han al h. tNa
officers and insisted that its rates were remu-
nerstive and showed that IL Was accepting them
without making ct any points the greater
charges upon the shorter haul. The evidence
that it, receipts were suflcient TO cover operat-
irg expenses was not very strong, and It clearly
appeared that for the current wear IT 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 or that 1t .hSzia oroer the Bur-
hnRton 4 Ne:.acrn 70 increase its rates b.
tween Chicago and st. Paul and Minneapolis 20
- to make them just and reasonable to the car
rfers themselves as well - the public: in other
words. to make them fairly remunerative, and
1t was insisted that the provision Of the Inter.
State Commerce law that all charges shall be
reasonable and just, was not complied with un.
from the standpoint Of the railroad company %
well ~ 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 20 low that
neither itself nor its rivals could accept them
without steady and destructive drain upon
their resources. The principal question therefore
raised before the Commission ut the hearing WAS
whether 1t had the power to compel the Bur-
n tn iu0r Ia ufoa t4
munerstive point, II they were found below that
point. The question is discussed in the opinion.
The Commission disclaims 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 tho actions OF their own
managers or against the unreasonable oompeti-
ton Ut rivals, and that it was never in the con-
temptation Of Congress that IL should b within
the power Of the Commission 70 order IN 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 4 Northern
made rates which were unreasonsbly low made
under similar circumstances ami conditions
as related in the fourth section Of the oct.
The respondent contended that II the Commis-
sion could not control the making Of destruct-
were subject to the act TO regulate commerce.
was just rs harmful ~ was the competition Of
vessels or the competition Of railroads not sub
iect to the act and. therefore, the competition
Of the Burlington Northern ut the terminal
points of respondents road established such
tlissimilar circumstances and conditions ~ JUS
titled it's charging less At such terminal points
than at intermediate stations. The Commission
does not asseAt TO this view. The showing OF
respondent Ii merely that . perverse rival
makes unreasonabiy low rates to the terminal
and conditions intended by the
manager in the Northwest may at pleasure by
. foolish tariff sheet give to one or more points
Of railroad competition q preference and ad-
vantage over all others.
The effect Of the doctrine commended for on
The part of the respondent would be that rail-
road companies, II they choose to do 30, may at
will build up q single point in the Northwest to
} preponderating and conclusive ascendancy At |
he 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 |
Z still lower rates are given to rival The |
Commission, therefore, finds and adjudges that |
he transporting of freights by respondent upon |
Is road from Chicago to ST. Paul, Minneapolis |
md Minnesota transfers and from such |
Northern termini to Chicago is made under sub |
similar circumstances and conditions |
10 those which like freights are transported on |
he same line from the same initial point or |
points in the same direction to intermediate |
stations, and, such being the case. that the |
yreater charges which respondent makes TO |
uch intermediate stations are illegal. An order |
Eil be entered that respondent cease and de- |
list from making such illegal charges.