The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1890-09-06
MUST NOT FAVOR THE STANDARD. 5
The Dccision OF tho Interstate Comm cree
Commission In tho Rice Case,

Anu DcSisiou OF mo lutersState commerce
Commission In tho Isico Case.
WASHINGTON, D. G., Sept 5.-The
Interstate Commerce Commission to.
day filed their decision by Commits.
sioner Shoemaker in the case Of Rice,
Robinson and Witherop against the
Western New York and Pennsylvania
Railway Companies and others.
The complaints alleged that tho roads
charged 81 cents per barrel on petroleum
from Tilusville to Buffalo, N. Y, aud
but l2 cents per barrel from Tituayille to
South Amboy, N. j., the ehort haul
being a part OF the latter haul only; that
the defendants required barrel ship.
ments to be loaded in the cars in tiers; =;
that the freight charged was an unjust
discrimination against the complaints
and against tho city Of Buffalo, and that
by making a more charge to shippers in
tanks than to shippers in barrels unjust
discrimination was made in favor of the
Standard Oh Company.
The Commission hold:-The acquisi.
tion and consolidation by rail carrier
under one system OF management OF diff.
ferent competing lines Of road, serving
tho same territory in tho carriage OF
competitive traffic to the same markets
cannot create right on the part OF the
carrier to take advantage Of the consol-
ldation OF interests to deprive the pub.
lie OF the benefits OF fair competition,
nor afford warrant for oppressive dis.
elimination with view 10 its own in
tereats, such as equalizing profits from
it's several divisions by making rates and
charges for one division that gave profit.
able markets to Il portion Of Its patrons
and higher rates and charges for another
division, that are destructive to the pur-
suits Of other patrons which are COM
petitors in the same business, but it's
duty to the public requires that it's SER
vice must be aliketo all who are situated
alike. r. 's-.---
A carrier that employs different meth.
ods for the transportation Of petroleum
oil and its products, in car loads, for ex.
ample tank cars, in which the oil is car
ried in bulk, and box cars in which the
oil is carried in barrels, is not relieved
from its duty in respect to equality OF
rates by the difference it makes between
its patrons in the mode OF carriage, but
its charges for like quantities carried be.
tween like points of shipment and desti.
nation must be equal upon the commod-
ity itself irrespective Of the mode OF car
riage or the tank or barrel package in
which it is contained differences in cir
cumstances and conditions OF transpor.
tetion that are OF q carriers own crea.
ton or connivance, or that by reasona-
BILE effort on the part OF carrier might
be avoided, cannot justify exceptional
rates.
A tank used in carrying oil is deemed
by carriers as part Of the car, and the
rate is charged only upon the contents,
while for carriage in box cars the barrels
containing the oil are treated as freight,
and the rate is charged both for the
weight of the barrel and its contents.
The prevention Of this prejudice to ship
pers in barrels requires that for pur-
pose OF rates when q carrier uses both
tank and box cars for carrying oil in car.
loads, the barrels shall be deemed part OF
the box car; and that, as in the case of
transportation in tanks the rates shall
be charged only for the weight OF guam
tity OF oil carried exclusive Of weight OF
the barrels and be the same for like
weight or quantity carried in tanks.
When a carrier engages in Transporting
oil in tanks, and also in barrels conveyed
in box cara. in carloads, and charged for
the weight OF the barrel RI we'll as for
the oil carried by the box cur mode OF
Transportation, but for the weight Of the
oil only when carried in tanks, it un.
Justly discriminates between shippers
and subjects tho traffic to undue preju-
dice and disadvantage. .-