New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-02-17
RAILROAD INTERESTS.
NEW -YORK'S ADVANTAGES RECOGNlHED
boston not ALLOWED TO SHARE THEM-A CoLo"-
LINE DECISION

LINE DECISION.
WAsHINGToN Feb lG-The Interstate Commeroo
Commission day rendered all opinion In tho case VI
the Boston Chamber Of Commerce against the Lake
Shore and Michigan southern Railroad Company, ''0
New-YoIk Central and Hudson River Railroad CO'n
panv and the Boston and Albany Railroad COMPANY
These roads form a through line and make tho"
rates from Chicago and other western points 10 po'
ton. and charged by the complainant Win hSA'e
higher rates on merchandise from the west intehd'a
for loc consumption al Boston. than arc chsrg'u w
similar shipments the line of the Lake shore anu
Michigan southern road and the New-iork Cchtrn
and Hudson River road to New York City, and hPher
than the export through Boston to foreign co"'
tries and TO points the coast of Maine, east OF fo
land which arc all equal with the New-forh fa'es
and also higher than the west Connd rates from los
tom which are also the same as the Nc"-horA f"''
The opinion says:
The essocund rates to Go,e9 are cass irn se@' ~ ner
York aud per hundred pounds higher IN ,n
local rates aud Ncw.York have existed for many years
and have been 9nSnGd % 1@ s usy ud higher
to @ gosq2 % Bds1Sn c 52 @ Of the
and rearrsngng trains at Albany; the heavier grs es
Of the BGssn an G SsSd. nd Sid fuel the
dS'entoh Of cars IN New England for unloading and re- e.
business from the West to New,1ork warming
Of tie roads the conpcon various other lines Of
railroad q, W yG5 all nys saFyns e lake 1Re fc Canal and
fuison River to New.York carried At materially lower @
rates than the rail- lines; and the eNta9T
rrsphca al and commercial advantages OF New-f nfk
from the unrvsed harbor its superior ocean
and the competition iNdl carriers 10 that poir
elements hat enter and determine the rates 70 II.
civ ard therefore it f. both natural ana reasonape
uDon iust such principles 81 transportation Bosoh is oU
OF Right entitled equal rights with New ork
The Commission holds therefore, that the
between the local rates and the lorh g,
has not been shown. I'm view Of ell the
the traffic unjust unreasonable Inc conpisa
was dismissed. Opinion by Commissioner schoo'DSN
A decision was also rendered By the Commission
to-day In The case OF william II. Hoard against .no
Georgia Railroad Company. Tho Commission hoi'S
that the petitioner, a colorcd passenger on the ue
fendant's road between Atlanta and Charleston "ho
had paid a first class fare subjected TO nhdne a"u
unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage In Vlo'auo"
OF the third section OF the ac 10 regulate commerce
I'm being compelled to travel in car OF inferior d.
commoda ions, of which only One-halt was asslghcu W
cOorcd passengers. the other half being useu az
smoLer for both white and colored passengers. hnu
that II IS the duty the carrier under the law 10 lur
nish to passengers paying the same fare equal accom-
modations and protection without discrimination on
ihr ground OF color. Bu II separation OF white ana
colorrd passengers Xpcden for adequate reasons
such separation IS not unlawful If the aecommodaoI|
ana comforts for colOr"d arc n sll icSpccS
equal those for white passengers paying the same
fare.
Opinion by Commissioner Shoemaker.