Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1888-09-27
A RAILROAD DECISIONS

A RAILROAD DECISIONS
The Interstate Commission Makes an Inn
portant Decision-The LSW Was Enacted
for the PeopleDNot fusetlee Railroads.
WASHINGTON, Seq D.-The Interstate
Commission yesterdass shrouga Chairman
Cooley, filed an opinion On the matter OF the
Chicago. St. Paul & Kansas City Railroad Com
pany This company IN Jnns Lass notified the
Commission that owi9g to the action OF COM
peting lines GOVERN rates be Neen chicago
and ST. Paul and minneapolis, 10 had been
obliged to reduce ID owR rates between those
points below the rates which il could afford -
Accept to intermediate points. 50 that upon lts
line there would be gseater charges made upon
the shorter haul man upon the longer IN the
same direction, and - stated that II complaint
6shouId be made a this II would undertake TO
Justify its action under the Law. The commas
sion therefore made an order TOT nearing 10
&C had az InbuQue. az which this company
would be called upon 70 justify its action, 50
Hhat other companies interested ana also any
commercial Organizations or any other party
desiring % be heard, might have the opportunt-
q A hearing vas accordingly had. anu on the
AaaEing che respondent company gave evidence
Ysndins to show that the action Is had taken
mas forced upon it by the Burlington d North.
eRn Raslroad Company. which mad mad, q rate
Aotgeen Chicago, St Paul and Mnne apofls- be-
log that which would be compensatory ana b.
lou which 10 10 impossible for any competing
Nnee % make without actual loss, and it pro-
puced evidence tending strongly to show that
Che Burlington Northern on the rates it was
Naaking vas not paying operating expenses. The
Chicago, Milwaukee & ST. Paul Company also
ESppeared and offered similar evidence, taking @
9fsailar position TO that OF the respondent COM
Sauy. The Burlington B Northern, on the
eaShef land, was represented by its general
officers and insisted that its rates were renu-
aasrasive and showed that il was accepting them
ds1shous nsking at any points the greater
charges upon the shorter haul. The evidence
shat lbs receipts were sum lent to cover operat-
tirGexpenses was not very strong. and 1t clearly
appeared tha4 foe the current wear II was 1aH-
ing behind
che respondents company insisted that the
Commission should either sanction the rates II
8as making to the intermediate stations be-
4ween its eermini, which were rates fair In
fasmselves. Or that il should order the Bur
hnssoa & Northern 60 increase its rates be.
8%een Chicago and st. Paul and Minneapolis so
iasko make them just ana reasonable to the car
1sefs themselves well as the public. in other
0sords, 20 make Shem fairly remunerative, and
50 was insisted that che provision OF the Inter.
gzsate Commerce law that all charges shall be
Rsasonable ana Just, vas not complied with IN
less they were reasonable and just considered
G9ofn the standpoint OF The railroad company as
0Rell az that OF the general public. The Bur
saigon & Northern, il was therefore contended.
eaa in constant violation OF the Interstate
CommeFce Law in making rates 30 low that
aeither itself nor les rivals could accept them
SffshouE steady ana destructive drain upon
eheir resources. The principal question therefore
raiseo before the Commission at che hearing vas
Nheshsr IL had the power Co compel the Bur
GingGon Northern To increase les rates to q re-
illustrative point if they were found below that
Roins. The question Is discussed in the opinion.
Che Commission disclaims possessing any such
Rowe-. It holds tina Congress- In the provision
occurring all rates co be reasonable and just,
8as legislating for the protection Of the general
Rublic and not for the protection OF railroad
oorioc hA ions NJ thai 0Naya
ananagers or against the unreasonable competi-
Siaa " RIVALS, and that is vas never in the con-
aemplation Of Congress that Sc should be within
che power Of che Commission TO order an in
crease an rates which. in It's own opinion ought
xes haze been made higher than they were. The
Qurfher question vas discussed whether the
FACE whether the burlington q Northern
made rates which were unFeasonably low made
Andeg SIMILAR circumstances an conditions
As zelafed IN che fourth section OF the act.
The respondent eonsended that il tho Commits
1ion could nos control che making OF destruct
i've rates the competition OF railroads which
SaeHe subject 60 the act 20 regulate commerce.
SEaS just as harmful as was the competition OF
@essels or tho competition OF railroads not sub
iecs TO the ace and. therefore. the competition
Or che Burlington & Northern at the terminal
f5oiass OF respondents road established such
aissimilaR circumstances and conditions as JUS
Afe6 les charging less at such tesminal points
Chan az intermediate stations The Commission
Goes noe assent &c this view. The showing OF
aakes unTeasonaby low rates to the terminal
eg les road, but il this makes out the dissinailaz
circumstances and conditions intended by the
6ouvth section OF the act, then any one railroad
manager in che Northwest may at pleasure by
eBsoolish sarif sheet give to one or more points
- railroad competition Q preference and ad
Santiago ever all others.
Ehe effect OF the doctrine contended for OF
Che pars OF the respondent would be that rail
9oad companies, Il they choose 20 do so, NAV a
Gill baild up single point in the Northwest K
9preponderating and conclusive ascendancy q
Che expense OF all others. The question o
@hat are just and fair rates is always relative
G40v rates 20 one place may not be just and fail
i3 SELL lover rates ara given to a rival Tit
Commission, therefore. Ands and adjudges tina
Che transporting OF freghts by respondent upoE
54s road from Chicago 20 ST. Paul. Minneapoli.
Snd Minnesota transfers and from sucl
Northern sesmini to Chicago is made under sub
etantielg similar circumstances and conditions
90 chose which like freights are transported o,
aha same hne from the same initial point o.
poinss in che same direction to tntermediatl
3tetions. and. such being the case, that tn,
sreateF charge which respondent makes Z,
9nch intermediate stations are illegal. An ordel
gill be entered that respondent cease and de
9iessson making such illegal charges.
-~1-
fREACHEROUS TiB.
azs12ee From Major Bartteiot Concernin,
she lll-Fated Relief Expedition.
Mo;~ D.