St. Landry democrat., 1888-03-03
INTERSTATE DECISION.
The Interstate Commission Decides
Against Determinations in Favor of the
Standard Oil Company.

The Interstate Commission Decides
Against Determinations in Favor of the
| Standard Oil Company.
| WASHINGTON, Feb. 24-The Inter- State
Commerce Commission yesterday promul-
| gated an elaborate opinion in the case of
George Rice, of Marietta, o., against the
Louisville & Nashville and several other
railroads, charging, among other things,
| discrimination in favor Of the Standard Oil
Company. The opinion says:
| Compartments 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 Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific
Companies had each a few tank cars but the
| tanks upon them were owned by the Standard
| Oil Company, of Kentucky and they were not
obtainable by other parties desiring to ship Oil
| in bulk by tank cars. They could only do so by
procuring and rendering to the railroad compa
nies the cars for transportation. The defend
ants 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 Oil in
tanks were car rates, but in some cases they
were by the 100 pounds The rate sheets gave
no information as to how tank ears were to be
obtained.
The Commission decides that 1t was the duty
OF defendants to publish information on this
subject with their rate sheets and that they did
not fully give the information regarding rates
which the act to regulate commerce intends
shall be placed before the public, unless they
did so. It is obvious that instead OF the defend
ants Offering two methods Of transportation
which are open to the acceptance OF all, they
offer only one which is so open The other is
offered on such terms that it can by no possibil-
ity be accepted only by parties who can control
considerable capital and who will supply for
an INN ant rt nf "a nf
transportation and also supply terminal facili-
ties. The man of small means who adopts the
methods Of transportation in barrels can not be
said to do so OF choice when the failure of the
carrier to supply for the other the customary
means of transportation compels him to do SO.
1t does not seem to us either just or plausible
to say under such circumstances that the per
SON whose oil is carried in barrels has voluntar-
lily chosen that method and has no concern with
the charges imposed on his competitor
who adopted the other. He is, on tue
contrary, vitality concerned with those
charges, and If his own are
not to be gagged in some degree by them he
may be ruined in his business without redress,
even though the charges he pays when consid-
cred by themselves may not seem unreasonable.
The Commission lays down the general rule
that the tank is to be considered part OF the
car itself, and for whatever is carried on it the
charge ought to be the same by the hundred
pounds as is made on the trans nsportation of bar
rels Of oil in car load lots in other cars. Even
then the shipper in barrels is at some disadvan-
tage, for he must pay freight on the caskets as
well as on the oil; but this as between him and
the carrier, is not unjust. This ruling does not
preclude such allowance for the use of tank cars
as Is customary, provided it be reasonable, but
it assumes that such allowance will be made.
But it should be made on some system by some
rule OF uniformity, and the authority to make it
muse aSs carelessly or otherwise be made
means Of discrimination.
The case Of each of the defendants was
then considered separately, and in the case
of the Louisville & Nashville railway an
order was entered that defendants
cease their unjust discrimination, that
they cease to make tank rates when the
tanks differ in capacity, and that they con-
form their charges on tank car and barrel
shipments to the rule above prescribed.
In the case of the st. Louis, Iron Noun
tain & Southern railroad the Commission
finds that the defendant made excessive
rates ON barrel shipments and that the ef-
feet was to unjustly discriminate against
complainant and to give undue and unreas-
enable preference TO shippers by tank cars.
Order was entered that its charges be cor
rected and made to conform to the rule.
In the other three cases, the Mobile &
Ohio, Mississippi & Tennessee and Illinois
Central, no orders were entered.