The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-09-20
The Interstate Commerce Commission
Makes q Ruling Of Great Importance.
lfa Railway COmpsny Chooses to Do Business
at Low and Unremuneratiye Rates. the
Law Will Not Interfere in the Matter.
House Democrats Playing a Game of
Bluff on the Adjournment Question.
Senator Edmunds Makes an Attempt 10 Ey-
tricate the Administration from Its Awk-
ward Attitude On the Chinese Matter.
UNREMUNERATIvE RATES.

UNREMUNERATIvE RATES.
A Highly Important Ruling by the Board Of
Interstate Commerce Commissioners.
WAsHrSaToN, Sept 19-The Intsrstate-com-
merce Commission to-day, through Chairman
Cooley, filed opinion in the matter OF the
Chicago. ST. Paul e. Kansas City railroad. This
company in June last notified the commission
that, owing to The action of competing lines COW
ering rates between Chicago and ST. Paul and
Minneapolis, it had been obliged to reduce its own
rates between those points below the rates
which it 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
il stated that IL complaints had been made of
this 1t would undertake te justify its action un-
der the intsrstate-eommerce law The commits
sion thereupon made an order for hearing to
be had at Dubuque, at which this company
would be called upon TO justify i,s ac-
ton, and for public notification. so
that other companies interested, and
also any commercial organizations
or any other party desiring to be heard, might
have tho opportunity, A hearing was accord
ingy had, and on the hearing the respondent
company gave evidence tending to snow that tho
action it had ,Aker was forced upon it by the
Burlington &c Northern Railroad Company,
which had made q rate between Chicago, st.
Paul and Minneapolis below that which would
be compensatory, and below what il was pos
sible for any competing lines to make without
actual loss, and it produced evidence tending
strongly to show that the Burlington & North
ern, on the rates il was making was was not
paying operating expenses. The Chicago, Mil
waukes & St. Paul company also appeared and
offered similar evidence, taking q similar posi-
'ion to that Of the respondent company. The
Bur lineton IL Northern, on the other hand, was
represented by its general officers, and insisted
that its rates were remunerativs, and
showed that it wzs accepting them
withon. making at any point the
greater charges upon the shorter haul
The evidence that its receipts were sufficient to
cover operating expenses was not very
strong, and Ii clearly appeared that for the
current year were falling behind. The respond
enteompsny insisted that the commission should
either sanction the rates it was making to ,h
intermediates stations between its termini,
order the Burlington & Northern to increase its
rates between Chicago and ST. Paul and Mime
Apols so 8 TO make them just and reasonable
10 the carriers themselves, well as to the pub
lie, IN other words, to make them fairly remun-
erative; aud it was insisted that the provision
of the interstate commerce law that all charges
shall De reasonable aud just was not complied
with unless they were reasonable and just
az md. .vnfn ~
IA railroad company As well as
from that OF the general public.
The Burlington & Northern, IL was therefore
cont ed, was III constant violation of the inter-
state-eommerce law IN making rates so low that
neither Itself nor It's rivals coud accept them
without steady and destructive drain upon
their resources. The principal question. there
fore, raised before the commission at the hear
ing was, whether II had the power to compel tbs
Burlington & Northern TO increase it's rates to q
remuueratiye point, II they were found to be be-
low that point This question 10 discussed in
the opinion. The commission disclaIms possess
ing any such power. IL holds that Congress, in
the provision requiring all rates TO be reasonable
and just Was legislating for the protection of
the general public aud not for the protection OF
railroad COMPANIES against the action Of their
own managers or against the unreasonable
competition OK rivals. and that It Was never ia
the contemplation of Congress tbat it should be
within the power Of the commission to order an
increase in rates which. IN Its opinion, ought TO
have been made higher than they were.
The further question WAS discussed whether
the fact that the Burlington & Northern made
rates which were unreasonably low, made out
the dissimilar circumstances and conditions un-
der the fourth section of the act The respond
ent eontended that If the commission could not
control the making OF destructive rates, the
competition of railroads which we're subject to
the act to regIlats commerce was just as harm
full the competition of vessels the
competition Of railroads not subject to the act,
and therefore the competition of the Burlington
x Northern at the terminal points of respond
ents road established such dissimlar circum-
stances and conditions as justified its charging
less at such terminal points than at intermediate
stations. The commission does not assent TO this
view. The showing Of the respondent is merely
that perverse rival makes unressonably low
rates to the tornini of its road bu: il this makes
out the disslmlsr circumstances aud conditions
intended by the fourth section of the act then
any one railroad manager in the Northwest may
at pleasure, by foolish tariE sheet, give to one
or more points OK railroad competition q pref
erencs advantage over all others. The effect
of the doctrine eontended for on the part of the
respondent would be that railroad companies. if
they choose to do so, may at will build up q
single point in the Northwest TO a preponderat-
ing and conclusive ascsndency at the expense or
all Others. The question OF what are just Ind fair
raIes is always relative. Low rates 10 one place
msy not be just and fair IL still lower
rates are given to rival. The commission,
therefore, finds and adjudges that the transpor-
tation OF freights by respondent upon its road
from Chicago to St Paul. Minneapolis and Min
nesota transfer, and froU such Northern ter
mini to Chicago, is msds under Substantially
similar circumstances and conditions to those
under 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
| charges which respondsnt makes to such inter
| mediate stations illegal. An order will be
| entered that respondent cease and dsss, from
| making such illegal charges.