New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1888-09-26
Important Railroad Decision.

l
/ The interstate commerce commission.
through Chairman Cooley, fled an opinion
in the matter of the Chicago ST. Paul & K an
sas City Railroad company. This company
! in June last notified the commission that
i owing to the action of competing lines cover
/ ing rates between Chicago & ST. Paul and
/ Minneapolis, it had been obliged to reduce
its own rates between these points below the
i rates which it could afford to accept to in
i termediate points, SO that upon it's line the
! would be greater charges madeupon theshors
er haul than upon the longer in the same
4 direction, and it is stated that if complaint
should be made of this, it would undertake
i to justify Its action under the interstate COM
/ merce law. Lbs commission thereupon m ade
an order for hearing to be held at Du-
buque as which the company would be called
upon to justify it's action and for public no III
HcatIon, SO that other companies interested,
and also any commercial organization or
| any other desiring to be heard, might have
| the opportunity A hearing was according
1 ~ had, and on the hearing the respond
! ent company gave evidence tending
1 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
/ petlng lines to make without actual loss and
/ it produced evidence tending strongly to
show that the 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 SO
! low that neither itself nor it's rivals could ac-
cept them without a steady and destructive
drain upon their resources. The principal
| question, therefore, raised before the COM
mission at the hearing was whether it had
+r>o
| ern to increase its rates to q 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 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 unreaso on
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
|
the Burlington 4 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-
structiyely low rates the competition of rail-
roads which were subject to the act to-
regulate commerce was just as harmful as the
| competition OF vessels OF 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 dissmilar 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 a per.
| verse rival makes unreasonably low rates
to the termini OF its road, but if this makes
out the dssimilar circumstances and condi-
tions intended by the fourth section of the
act, then any one railroad manager in the
Northwest may at pleasure, by 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
viewin 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 Dlr-
poses, be dependent on the will of any single
railroad manager who, from policy 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 at will
build up single point in the Northwest to
| a preponderating and conclusive ascendency
at the expense OF all Others Giving it rates
which in proportion would be mere fraction
| OF what other localities must pay
might fix its ascendency 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 VIII at are
just and fair rates is always relative Low
rates to one place may not be just and fair
II still lower rates are given to rival The
! commission therefore finds and adiudpes 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
| trelghts are transported on the same line
from the same initial point or points 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 dcsst from m ak
| ing such illegal charges. Incidentally in dis
cusslng the case the commission says it does
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 be excessive
The commission does not discuss the cues
ton how far water transportation may iusti-
| ty the greater charge on the shorter haul in
any case, there being in the case no facts to
make the discussion relevant
| Corruption ut Alaska
Chester Seeber, formerly United States com.
missioner for Alaska at Ounalaska, sent to
| the house committee on merchant marine
a letter concerning the Alaska company
and the seal fisheries which the committee
/ now has under inunrti nntia,, IIa--- 1880.