The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1888-02-21
INTERSTATE DECISION.
The DanviiIe Chamber OF Commerce against the
Richmond and Danyiile.

hchmond and DaRyiie.
WASHINGTON, February 2O-The In
ter-State Commerce Commission TODAY
fled an opinion by Chairman Cooley in
the case of the complaint of the Commit
tee on Transportation of the Danville.
Va, Chamber of Commerce against the
Richmond and Danville Railroad Com
pany. The complaint is contained in a
number of charges, the chief of which
We're that it made excessive charges:
that it Disseminated in its charges
against the merchants and traders of
Richmond, Lynchburg and Charlottes-
vile. and especially that it Disseminated
by refusing to give to the merchants and
traders in Danville, in respect to mer-
chandise purchased by them at Rich
mond and other points, through rates
from the point of purchase to the point
at which they might make the sale there
of. Elaborate proofs were taken in the
case, and the commission finds a number
of instances of excessive charges to be
made out. In respect to such charges
the parties paying them were not repre-
sented in the case before the commits
sion, but it was shown that so far as the
rates We're found to be erroneous they
had been corrected, and if overcharges
had not been repaid the party in each
case was entitled to have repayment on
demand.
The through rates to Danville from
both.directions Were complained of, the
commission holds that in so far as the
rates are made by other companies,
without participation of the defendant,
the defendant does not charge itself with
any responsibility therefore by merely
giving rates in addition to its own to
any one who asks for through rates.
The commission holds that the Justice
of local rates cannot be determined by
comparison of them with rates charged
on long through lines, upon which
freights are carried for long distance
in great volume. and at relatively very
much less expense than like freights can
be carried when moved in less guam
titles and for comparatively short dis
tances.
To present the ground for the charges
of discrimination in favor of Richmond
rs against DanYile, an illustrative in
stance may be taken. The Danville
merchant claimed that in case he bought
merchandise iii Richmond and shipped
it to Danville, and then sold it to Colds
boro and other points further on. and
shipped it to such points, he should have
the through rate on merchandise from
Richmond to the point of final destina-
ton, and unless he was given such
through rate ne was at a disadvantage
in competition with the Richmond mer-
chant in making sales to the same point
The railroad company concede the
through rate when the Danville mer-
chant makes his shipment direct from
Richmond to his place of sale, but re-
fuses to do so when the shipment is first
to Danville and then a second shipment
made to the point of sale.
The commission hold that IN the case
supposed the railroad cannot be com
PEELED to give the same rate for two
shipments that it gives when there is
one only. The fact that its refusing to
do so operates in favor OF one town, or
adversely to another, does not charge it
with unjust discrimination. Discrimi-
nation must consist in doing for, or al
lowing to, one party or place what is
denied to another. 1t cannot be pre-
dicated of an action which in itself is
impartial.