Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1888-10-12
An important Decision.

| cagO, st. Paul & Kansas CITY Railroad
company. This company in June last
notified the commission that owing to
the action of competing lines covering
rates between Chicago and st. Paul
and Minneapolis it had been obliged
to reduce its own rates between those
points below the rates which it could
afford to accept conference.-the points.
so that upon its line there would be
greater charges made upon shorter
haul than upon a longer in the same
direction, and it stated that If com
plant should be made of this, it would
undertake to justify its action under
the interstata commerce law.
The hearing was accordingly had
and on the hearing the respondent
company gave evidence tending to
show that the action it had taken was
forced upon it by the Burlington and
Northern company, and st. Paul and
Minneapolis below that which would
be compensation, and below what it
would be possible for any competing
lines to make without actual loss, and
! 1t produced evidence tending strongly
to show that the Burlington & North
ern, on the rates it was making, was
not paying operating expenses. The
! Chicago Milwaukee & St Paul road
also appeared and offered similar evil
! dences, taking a similar position to
that of the respondent company. The
Burlington & Northern, on the other
hand, was represented byit s general off
GERS and insisted that its rates were re-
munerative and showed that it was ac-
! cepting them without making at any
point a greater charge upon a shorter
haul. The evidence that its receipts
were sufficient to cover operating ex-
penses was not very strong and it
| clearly Ppeared that for the current
year it was falling behind.
The respondent company insisted
that the commissioners should either
| sanction the rates it was making to in
termediate stations between its termini
which were rates fair in themselves, or
that it should order the Burlington &
Northern to increase its rates between
Chicago and st. Paul and Minneapolis,
so as to make them Just and reasonable
to carriers themselves, as well as to the
public. The Burlington & Northern,
it was therefore continued, was in con-
slant violation to the interstate COM
cree law in making rates so low that
neither itself nor its rivals could accept
them without steady and destructive
drain upon its resources.
The principal question, therefore,
raised before the commission at the
hearing was whether it had power to
compel the Burlington & Northern to
increase its rates to a remuneratiYe
point, if they were found to be below
that point. This question is discussed
In the opinion. The commission dis
claims possessing any. such power. 1t
holds that congress, IN the provision
requiring all rates to be reasonable and
just, was legislating for the protection
of the general public and not for the
protection Of railroad companies
against the action of their managers or
against unreasonable competition of
rivals, and that it was never in the con
temptation of congress that it should
be within the power of the commission
to order an increase in rates, which in
it's opinion ought to have been made
higher than they were. In this re-
spect it was supposed that railroad
companies had an ample remedy in
their own hands in the authority which
they possessed to make rates, and that
the protection needed from the gov
eminent was the protection of those
who would be compelled to pay rates
that should thus he made.
The further question was discussed
whether the fact that the Burlington
& Northern made rates which were
unreasOnably low, made out dissimilar
circumstances and conditions under the |
fourth section of the act, which would /
entitle the respondent company to /
make a greater charge on a shorter |
haul. The respondent cOntended that |
the commission could not control the /
making of destructively low rates, the |
competitions OF railroads which were /
subject to the act to regulate commerce
was just as harmful as was ne cOmpe- |
titiOn of vessels or the competition of /
railroads not subject to the act, and /
therefore the competition of the Bur /
hngtOn & Northern at the terminal /
points of the respondents road estab- /
hshed such dissimilar circumstances /
and conditions as justified its charging /
less at such terminal points than in /
termediate stations.
The commission does not assent to /
this view The showing of the re- /
spondent Is merely that of a perVerse !
rival who makes unreasOnabIy low |
rates to the terminus of it's road. But |
if this makes out the dissimilar cir |
cumstances and conditions intended bv /
the fourth section Of the act, then any /
one railroad manager IN the northwest /
may at pleasure, by a foolish tariff /
sheet, give to one or more points of /
railroad competition preference and /
advantage over all others, and this |
toehw ldeudale II leading pur- /
2 Z Er at
which was to put an end to discrimina- /