The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-02-24
In Which the Standard Oil Com
pany Is for Onoe Beaten.
Also tho Railroads Which Helped
tho Grinding Monopoly.
The Interstate Commerce Commits
sion Does a Good Days Work.
The Principal Southern Roads are De-
fendants-All Railroads Must Treat
Shippers, Whether Great or
Small, Alike and Justly.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23.--The interstate
commerce commission today promulgated
an elaborate opinion in the case OF George
Rice, OF Marietta, o., against the Louis
vile K Nashville and several other rail.
roads, charging, among othor things, dis.
elimination in favor OF the Standard Oi
company.
The opinion says that complainants
method of shipment was in barrels. This
was the only method for which any Of the
defendants supplied rolling stock to their
patrons.
The Louisville & Nashville, and the Gin
oinnati, New Orleans 4 Texas Pacific COM
panies had each n few tank cars, ba the
tanks upon them were owned by the Stand
ard Oil company OF Kentucky, and they
were not obtainablc by other parties dcsir-
ing TO ship oil in bulk by tank cars. They
could only do 30 by procuring aud tender
ing TO the railroad companies the cars for
transportation. The defendants by their
rate sheets gave rates on oil in barrels, and
TO many towns, but not all, on oil in tanks
also. Generally the rates ON the transport
taiion Of oil in tanks were ear rates, but in
some eases they were by the hundred
pounds The rate sheets gave no inior-
nation ~ TO how tank ears were 10 be OBJ
taincd.
The commission decides that Il was the
duty of the defendants 10 publish inform
alton ON this subject with their rate sheets,
and that thcy did not fully give the in
formation regarding ritcs which the act 10
regulate commerce intends shall be placed
before the public unless they did ~. IL Is
obvious that instead Of the defendants Of
iering two methods OF transportation,
which are open 10 the acceptance Of all,
they offer only one which is 10 open. The
other II offered ON such terms that II can
by no possibility be accepted only by par
ties Who can control considerable capital,
and who will supply for themselves an im-
portant part of the means of transportation,
and also supply terminal icilities. The
| man OF small means who adopts the meth
ods OF transportation In barrels cannot be
said 10 do ~ OF choice whom the failure Of
the carrier 10 supply for the other tho Gus
iomary means OF transportation compels
him 10 do 30.
II does not seem TO us either Just or
plausible 10 say under such circumstances
| that tho person whose oil Is carried in bar
rcls has voluntarily chosen that method
and has no concern with the charges i'm.
posed on his competitor who adopted the
other. lie II, on the contrary, vitality con-
ccrncd with those charges, and II his own
aro not TO be gaugcd In some degree by
them lac may be- ruined In his business
without redress, even though the charges
he pays when considered by themselves
may seem not unreasonable. Tho com
mission lays down the general rule that
tho tank Is 10 be considered part OF the
car itself and for whatever Is carried in H.
the charge Is 20 be the samc by the 100
pounds isis made on the transportation oil
barrels OF oil In carload lots In other cans
Even then ihcshippcr In barrels Is at some
disadvantage for ho must pay freight on
tho caskcts as well ~ on the oil; but this,
as between him and the carrier, Is not
| unjust.
This ruling does not preclude such
allowance Tor the use Oi tank cars as II
customary, provided i be reasonable, but
| II assumes that such allowance will be
made. But IL should be made on some
system by some rule Of uniformity, and thu
authority 10 make Il must not clrelcssly or
otherwise be made means Of discrimina-
ton.
Tho case Of each Of the defendants was
then considered separately, aud In the
case Of the Louisville 4 Nashville railroad
an order was entered that defendants
cease their unjust discrimination: that
they cease 10 make tank rates when the
tanks differ in capacity, and that they con.
form their charges on tank car and barrel
shipments 10 the rule above prescribed.
In the case Of the st. Louis, Iron Noun
tain K Southern railroad tho commission
finds that the defendant made excessive
rates ON barrel shipments, aud that the
effect was to unjustly discriminate against
complainant and 10 give undue and un'
reasonable preference 10 shippers by tank
cans. This order was corrected and made
10 conform 10 the rule.
In the other three cases, the Mobile 4
Ohio, Mississippi 4 Tcnnessec, and Illinois
Central, no orders were entered. The
commission states that while the questions
raised by tho charges are important they
scarcely received any attention, either IN
the taking Of evidence or In the arguments
which were made on behalf OF complain.
ant. A decision upon them would aiicct
other partics quito rs much N the parties
| now before tho commission, aud under
such circumstances Il would be improper
10 pass upon thom now.