Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1890-12-04
UNJUST Drsonrm1NArroN.


The subject of Judge CooIey,s Third
: Lecture-Some Existing Facts I'm
Railroad Affairs Before the 1SS7 Act
of Regulation.
A large attendance as usual was present
yesterday afternoon, in spite of the inclem-
emit weather, to listen to the third of Judge
Cooley's lectures on ssThe Act of Interstate
Commerce Regulation" 1t is in brief as
follows: Another provision we have in the
second clause of this is that of unjust dis
elimination. It comes from the act Of En-
glish legislation in 1854. Here is some
thing which is definite and fixed: The car
rier is expressly prohibited from doing
something. He may not make special
rate or give rebate, and the rule may be
est difficulty.
This rule is just as applicable to a small
country as well as large one It does not
act against all discrimination, but only in
the cases where the act is unjust. At first
| it was viewed as applying to all cases of
| observation-disclosures fixed rule as it were
but this has not been accepted.
Much controversy has arisen over the
be discrimination when transported in
tanks, cars or barrels, as unjust to small
| dealers.
Legislation in this matter has not yet
| been affected.
| There is a species of undue discrimina-
ton widely prevalent in this country,
| which comes under the condemnation of
this act, namely, free transportation.
There is great deal of it, even officials of
the government being largely guilty. They
attempt to evade the condemnation of the
act by making it passage simply through
| a state, and therefore not coming under
the head of interstate commerce traffic.
| Unreasonable preference or advantage to
any person or locality is also prohibited in
clause three, and this, also, comes from
the English statute of 1854. All prefer
ences are not forbidden. Were we to
travel all over the country we would un-
doubtedly find many acts of preference on
the part of the railroads which do, and
would not, probably, strike the public as
unjust, but might, nevertheless, technical
" come under the prohibition of this act
| The question of unreasonable preference
might be raised in the case where a large
manufacturing company has o side
track run out to it's establishment
as an advantage, from which the smaller
company is deprived. The question o.
lower rates on the main line than on the
feeders of a big railroad, though all ar
managed by the same corporation is on,
that might be acted upon by an admins
trative board. The spirit of this act is t,
preserve competition between the railroad
companies and present monopolies. Be
fore this act competition between the road
was free and lead to the grossest discrimi
nation and the forming of monopolies
There were mischiefs attending of yer,
harmful nature, injurious as though tn
government were to discriminate at will.
The power exercised by the railroa,
managers was such that they could pul
down or build up as they blessed simpl
by their change of rates.
In the early days of the transportatio
of live stock certain arrangements wer
made by some large dealers by which, q
the end of season they would find nc
only had their own stock been carried FIRE
: of cost, but they had even made some
thing besides This power of discrimins
ton was greater than any act that th
{ government exercises to-day. Were til
government to exercise like power
would be just ground for revolution S
you see it is matter of the greatest in
portance.
: An unrestricted war of rates, whic
would almost necessarily attend unr
stricted competition between the road
f would ruin, eventually, nearly every raj
, road company in the country. These pr
visions are of as much Importance for tt
railroads themselves as for the gener
public.
g The judge will deliver his fourth lectu,
this afternoon as usual.