Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1888-09-27
rmpart.nt n.Ilreaa pseI.Isa.

Az N ~
through Chairman Cooley, Sled an opinion
m the matter OF the Chicago, St q &
a. CIV Railroad company. This company
m June last notified tho commission that
owing 20 the action Of competing lines cover,
ing rates between Chicago x y. ram anu
~ own rates between these points below the
rates which il could afford TO accept 20 IN
termediafe points, so that upon its line there
wou;d 10 greater charges made upon the short
or haul than upon the longer IN the same
direction, and e is stated that y complaint
should be made OF this, tt WOULD uhaerlaAe
10 iustify II. action under the Interstate com
meIre law. Tbs commission tbereupon made
nm order for a hearing to be held az Du,
huoue as which the eompany would De coiteu
mon 10 Justify its action and for public noti-
6cation, SO that other companies interested,
and also any commercial organization or
any other desiring to be heard, might have
ne onnortuEity. A hearing was according
ly mad and on the hearing the respond
mt company CAV evidence tendihS
Ia chow that the action il had taken was
forced upon Il by the Burlington x Northern
railroad company, which had mahe q raie
between Chicago, st. a ana siihheapohs
below that which would be compensatory
and below what II was possible for any com.
netting lines to make without actual loss, and
X produced evidence tending strongly TO
show that the Burlington 4 Northern on the
rates it was making was not paying oPerat-
ing expenses.
ended was IN constant violation Of the in
terstate law in making rates SO
low that neither itself nor its rivals could nc.
cent them without A steady and destructive
drain upon their resources. The principal
ouestion. therefore, raised before the com
nilsson at the hearing was whether it nad
the Uower to compel the Burlington & North
- - s,.-aoso fa rates 10 n rPmuQeralITe
poiEt.
The commission disclaims possessing any
such power. 1t holds that congress, in the
provision requiring all rates to be reasonable
and lust. was legislating for the protection OF
the general public, and not for the protection
ofrailroad companies against the action OF
their own managers or against the unreason-
able competition of rivals, and that 1t was
never in the contemplation Of congress that
il should be within the power OF the commits
sion TO order an increase In rates which,
in its opinion. ought to have been
made higher than they were, In TINS
respect IL was supposed that the railroad
companies had ample remedies IN their own
hands. in the authority which they possessed
TO make rates. and the protection needed
from the government was the protection OF
those who would be compelled to pay the
rates tina should thus be made. The further
nuestiou was discussed Whether the fact that
4 Tie IUIlHt-tOu ~ ANCAt = -
we're u~areasonably low made out the dis
similar circumstances and conditions under
the fourth section of the act which would
s1title the respondent company to make q
greater charge on the shorter haul. The
respondent commended that il the com
mission could not control the making OF de-
.tructiyely low rates the competition of rail-
roads which were subject to the act to-
regulate w~asjust as harmful as the
eomDctition of vessels or the CONF petition OF
r~niIroads not subject to the act, and there
fore the competition Of tie burlington q
Northern at the terminal points OF respond
ants road established such dissimilar eircum-
stances and conditions as justided its charg-
ing less at such terminal points than at in
termediate stations. The commits sion
does not assent to this view. The
showing OF respondent is merely that a per
verse rival makes unreasonabiy low rates
to the terIniui OF it's road, but II this makes
out the dissimilar circumstances aud eondi-
lions intended by the fourth section CT the
act, then any one railroad manager in the
Northwest may at pleasure, by o foolish
tariff sheet. give to one or more points OF
railroad competition a preference and adj
vantage over all Others, and this would
defeat one OF the leading purposes had IN
view in adopting the net, which was to put
an end to the discrimination which before
we're so common between different iocaif
ties. The act itself would there
fore. as TO one Of its leading pur-
poses. he dependent on the will Of any single
railroad manager who, from roliey or PER
~yersity, might see fit to nullify il. The effect
of the doctrine costendcd for on the part OF
the respondent wouid be that railroad com
panies, if they chose to do so, may at will
build up u single point in the Northwest to
a preponderating and conclusive ~asceudeney
at the expense OF all Others. Giving It rates
which in proportion would be a mere fraction
OF what other localities must pay
might fix its ascendency with little
regard TO natural or other advantages. IL
will not do to say that the rates TO inter
mediate stations are Just aud fair in
and of themselves. The question of what are
Just and fair rates is always relative. Low
rates 10 one place may not be just and fair
IL still lower rates are given TO a rival. The
commission therefore finds and adjudges that
the transportation of freighta by respondent
upon its road from Chicago to st. Paul, Min
neapolis and Minnesota Transfer. and from
such Northern termini 10 Chicago rs made
under substantially similar circumstances
and conditions to those under which like
freigbts are transported on the same line
from the same initial point or pourts in the
same direction to intermediate stations, and
such being the case, that the greater charges
which respondent makes to such intermediate
stations are Illegal, an order will be entered
that respondent cease and dcsist from max
ing such Illegal charges. incidentally IN dis
GUESSING the ease the commission says it does
not understand on what ground the Burling-
ton 4 Northern, while insisting hat its rates
from Chicago To st. Paul IRE ren~unerative
can Justify charging the same rates for one
third or two-thirds the distance. Upon its
own showing those rates seem to be excessive.
The commission does not discuss the ques-
ton how far water transportation may justi-
~ the greater charge on the shorter hauI in
any ease, there being in the case no facts &c
make the discussion relevant.