The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1888-09-27


through Chairman Cooley, fled an opinion
in tho matter OF the Chicago, ST. Paul & KIM
sas City Railroad company. This company
in June last notified the commission th at
owing to the action of competing lines cover
ing rates between Chicago & st. Paul and
Minneapolis, it had been Obliged to reduce
it's own rates between these points below the
rntes which it could afford to accept to in
termedate points, SO that upon it's line there
would be greater charges made upon the short
er haul than upon the longer in the same
direction, and it is stated that if complaint
should be made of this, it would undertake
to justify it's action under theinterstate COM
merce law. This commission thereupon IN ade
an order for hearing to be held at Du-
buque us which the company would be called
upon to justify it's action and for public noti-
ficntion, 80 that other companies interested.
and also any commercial organization or
any other desiring to be heard, might have
the opportunity. A hearing was according
ly had and on the hearing the respond
ent company gave evidence tending
to show that the action it had taken was
forced upon it by the Burlington & Northern
railroad company. which had made rate
between Chicago, st. Paul and Minneapolis
below that which would be compensatory
and below what it was possible for any COM
peting lines to make without actual loss, and
it produced evidence tending strongly to
show that tho Burlington & Northern on the
rates it was making was not paying operat-
ing expenses.
The Burlington & Northern. it was con-
tended, was in constant violation of the in
terstate commerce law in making rates
low that neither itself nor it's rivals could ac-
cept them without u steady and destructive
drain upon their resources. The principal
question, therefore, raised before the CON-
mission at the hearing was whether it had
the power to compel the Burlington North
ern to increase its rates to O remunerative
point.
The commission disclaims possessing any
such power. 1t holds that congress, in the
provision requiring all rates to be reasonable
and just, was Iegislating for the protection of
the general public, and not for the protection
ofraroad companies against the action Of
their own managers or against the unreason-
able competition of rivals, and that it was
never in the contemplation of congress that
it should be within the power of the commits
sion to order an increase in rates which,
in it's opinion, ought to have been
made higher than they were. In this
respect it 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 that should thus be made. The further
question was discussed whether the fact that
the Burlington & Northern made rates which
were unreasonably low made out the dis
similar circumstances and conditions under
the fourth section Of the act which would
entitle the respondent company to make a
greater charge on the shorter haul. The
respondent contended that If the COM
mission could not control the making of de-
structively low rates the competition of rail
roads which were subject to the act to-
regulate commerce wasjust as harmful as the
competition of vessels or the cOmpetit ion OF
railroads not subject to the act, and there
fore the competition of the Burlington &
Northern at the terminal points of respond
ent's road established such dssimilar circum-
stances and conditions as justified it's 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 per
verse rival makes unreasonably low rates
to the termini of its road, but if this makes
out the dissimilar circumstances and condi-
tions intended by the fourth section of the
aet, then any one railroad manager in the
Northwest may at pleasure, by q foolish
tariff sheet, give to one or more points of
railroad competition q preference and ad-
vantage over all Others, and this would
defeat one Of the leading purposes had in
view in adopting the act, which was to put
an end to the discrimination which before
were SO common between different locali-
ties. The act itself would there
fore, as to one of it's leading pur-
poses, be dependent on the will of any single
railroad manager who, from r'olicy or per
versity, might see fit to nullify it. The effect
of the doctrine contended for on the part OF
the respondent would be that railroad COM
panies, if they chose to do SO, may ut will
build up single point in the Northwest to
preponderating and conclusive ascendency
at the expense OF. oil others. Giving 1T rates
which in proportion would be q mere fraction
Of what other localities must pay
might, fix it's ascenddency with little
regard to natural or other advantages. 1t
will not do to say that the rates to inter
mediate stations are just and fair in
and of themselves. The question of what are
just and fair rates is always relative. Low
rates to one place may not be just and fair
if still lower rates are given to q rival. The
commission therefore finds and adjudges that
the transportation of freights by respondent
upon it's road from Chicago to st. Paul, Min
neapolis and Minnesota Transfer, and from
such Northern termini to Chicago is made
under substantially similar circumstances
and conditions to those under which like
freights are transported on the same line
same direction to intermediate stations, and
such being the case, that the greater charges
which respondent makes tosuch intermediate
stations are illegal, an order will be entered
that respondent cease and desist from max
ing such illegal charges. Incidentally i'll dis
not understand on what ground the Burling
ton Northern, while insisting that it's rates
from Chicago to st. Paul are remunerative,
can justify charging the same rates for one
third or two-thirds the distance. Upon its
own showing those rates seem to he excessive.
The commission does not discuss the ques-
ton how far water transportation may justi-
fy the greater charge on the shorter haul in
any case, there being in the case no facts to
make the discussion relevant.
Corruption 1T Alaska.
Chester Seeber, formerly United States COM
missioner for Alaska at Ounalaska, sent to
the house committee on merchant marine
letter concerning the Alaska company
and the seal fisheries which the committee
now has under investigation. He claims
that the company. uses the power. of its con-
tract with the government to monopolise the
whole trade of Western Alaska, to oppress
the inhabitants of that country .and to re-
tard its Development.
"All commerce with this part of Alaska"
he says, "Is done through the rivers and
Behring SEQ Mt the instance of the company,
and any vessel found there is searched and
any furs which it may be found to contain.
in whatever manner obtained, are seized and
sold. This prevents trade with the country,
vou,1tc m IN irropn ra h1o loas