Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-01-11
THE PENNSY'S PLEA.
Charges Of Unfairness, Made Against
Three Railway Companies,
DENIED BY THE DEFENDANTS.
It's True the Big Railroad Made Low Rated
in Certain Cases,
BUT THIS, IT'S SAID. WAS UNNECESSARY
An Argument That Iron-CIad Rules Would Iuiura
Their Business

The Pennsylvania Company and Penn.
sylvania Railroad have fled an answer to
certain complaints made BY the New York
Board of Trade and Transportation before
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The defendants were charged with unjust
discrimination. This charge is denied and
dismissal Of the complaint is asked.
WASHINGTON, January 10.-Answer was
fled to-day before the Interstate Commerce
Commission by the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company, the Pittsburg. Ft. Wayne and
Chicago Railway Company and the Pitts
burg, Cincinnati and st. Louis Railway
Company, defendants in complaint fled
against them by the New York Board Of
Trade and Transportation. The complaints
charged, among other things, that since
April 4, 1887, the defendants have been
guilty OF unjust discrimination, in that they
have been in the habit of charging their
regular tariff rates upon property when de-
livered to them at New York and Philajel-
phia for transportation to Chicago and other
western points, while charging other persons
rates much lower, and even as low as 80 per
service, when the property is delivered to
them at New York aAd Philadelphia by yes
sells and steamship lines under through bills
of lading from foreign ports and foreign in.
terror points, etc.
ALL THE CHARGES DENIED,
Defendants, in their answer, deny that
they are guilty of unjust discrimination
and that either of them is interested in the
management and operation Of steamship
lines running from New York and Phila-
delphia to foreign ports. The Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company, the defendants
say, is, however, the owner of capital stock and
bonded Indebtedness of the International
Navigation Company to the extent Of less
than one-sixth of the entire aggregate Of
such capital stock and Indebtedness.
The said international Navigation Com
pany is interested in several lines Of steam
ships between Philadelphia and New York
and foreign ports, but the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company takes no part in, nor
does it assume any control or supervision
OF, nor does it claim or exercise any excep-
tional facilities, with reference to said
steamships by reason of said stock and bond
ownership.
THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT.
The answer admits that, under an ar.
rangement expiring October 1, 1889, the de-
fendant companies formed with certain
ocean steamship lines through routes and
by means thereof, were engaged in connec-
ton with said steamship lines, as common
carriers in the transportation of property
under a common arrangement for a eontinu-
Gus carriage between points in Europe and
the city of Chicago and other Western
points via New York and Philadelphia;
and defendants say that by the universal
practice of carriers constituting through
route under q common control, etc., for con-
tinuous carriage, the initial carrier fixed
the rate, and subsequent carriers under that
practice did not file the tariffs of rates
Tor through shipments. Defendants also
admit that they did receive, as their portion
Of the through rate. less amount than
theIt full inland rate, but say that if q state-
ment contained in the complaint.
TABLE SHOWING RATES CHARGED
hundred pounds, and in cases where i'm
ports were carried by the American line to
Philadelphia, is correct in the special in
stances there set forth, so far as the through
rate is concerned (Which is not ADMITTEDLY,
yet the divisions therein shown credit de-
PENDANTS with less sum than was actually
received. But defendants aver that said
rates, so far as correctly stated, represent
exceptional instances of extreme low rates,
the current and prevalent rates approxi-
mating more closely the sum of the inland
and ocean rates.
The defendants say they are advised that
the acceptance offs proportion for the inland
carriage less than the local inland rates was
necessary, and they give their reasons why
they think such rates are justifable. Their
chief reason is that such rates have been
rendered necessary in order to obtain trafio
via New York and Philadelphia, as
AGAINST THE COMPETITION
of the route via Montreal, for BY this latter
route 500 of the 800 miles of railroad car.
riage is upon Canadian railroads, not sub
iect to the Jurisdiction Of the Commission,
and only 800 miles upon lines of railroads
within the limits of the United States. De
PENDANTS say that the agents in Europe Of
the route to Chicago via Montreal, eompet-
ing with the agents of the defendants
through line to the same point, rendered to
the shippers the option of movement from
either by the railroad via Detroit
or by the water route via the Merchants
line of propellers, and constantly bid for
said traffic at through rate lower than that
fixed cotemporaneously by the delendants'
through line.
Defendants therefore aver that the said
through rate and the division Of the rate,
we're, for these reasons, justified under the
law and in this behalf, invited the judge
ment of the commission.
WANT THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
Inasmuch, however, they say in conclu.
ZION, as any order which might be made
in the future of the practices by
he defendants as herein admitted, would
work great and unjust prejudice to them
1nless all the competitive lines from the sea-
hore inland were also in like manner
and restricted, it is suggested to
he commissioners that under their ample
powers in this behalf warranted, they cause
he said carriers by competitive routes to be
made parties to this inquiry.
The defendants pray, therefore, that the
complaint in this case be dismissed.