Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1892-04-23
INTERSTATE CONVERGE COMMEs.
SION.
Application for Rehesrine by n. W,
r. 81 n. II. II. Co. OverruIed.

Application for Rehearinc by n. W,
p. & n. II. II. Co. OverruIed.
In tho report and opinion of the
Commission, filed April 18th, 1891, g
Inters. Com. Rep. 55s) it was decided
(among other things) that certain Of
the freight charges by the defendant
companies upon market produce, or
dinarily known as ''perishable
freight" were unreasonable in them
selves, and reduction in the tariff
thereon was ordered of twenty-five
per centum upon some articles, and
of twenty per centum on some others.
One of the claims of the complain
ant upon the hearing, was that the
rates were in violation of the fourth
section of the Act, by reason of lower
rates from Norfolk, Virginia, to New
York, than from intermediate points.
The fact was conceded on the hear
ing, but it was insisted that the trfllc
was not carried Oh under similar cir
cumstances and conditions, because
the Norfolk business was in the pres
ence of sharp and controlling water
competition. 1t was thought best,
under all this circumstances of the
case, which was marked by many
months of negotiation between the
parties looking to q settlement OF all
the matters in the controversy, that
an order should issue as to those rates
which were adiudged to be unreason-
able IN themselves. leaving the ques-
ton of the effect of the lower Norfolk
rates TO New York, for future deter
mination upon further proofs.
Thereupon the defen ants filed q
motion for a rehcaring, and claimed,
~ that the former testimony did not
warrant u finding thatth rates upon
articles, which were ordered to be re
duccd, were unreasonable in them
selves. and it ,e.s.s claimed that the
testimony to that effect, was in view
of and limited to the unsatisfactory
service, which the defendants adj
mitted had been rendered before that
time, and which ii was said had been
so much improved Us to be satisfac-
tory; and (2) that the deduction made
by the Commission that The rates
were too high, because the earnings
ON the articles complained Of in this
case, between the starting point and
New York, bore q disproportionate
relation to the earnings of all other
traffic, was fallacious.
AS to the first objection which is
presented above, it is proper to state
that while some of the witnesses did
say that the rates would be satisfac-
tory, if the service was brought W to
what it ought to be, this is not true
us to all the witnesses, solne of whom
testified that he rates were unreason-
able and without qualification. Be-
sides. the question of the reasonable
ness OF q rate does not depend always
upon the opinion of witnesses, but is
often determined, as the Commission
has repeatedly said. by comparison
of the rates generally for the trans
portatjon of the same commodities,
the rates charged npon other COM
modities having some, but more
remote, bearing upon the question.
Evidence of this character is always
within reach Of the Commission, in
its own records; and the question of
the Jcasonableness of rates is one
which is constantly before us, and
when this case was under copsiGera-
ton, another case was considered
and passed upon, in which all the
features Of this special service in
volved here, were pressed upon the
attention of the Commission, and by
the same parties in interest,as are now
pressing this motion. From a careful
review of the whole caso ,wh;c neces-
sariiy includes not only the oral and
other testimony submitted, but also
the evidence of records, which are
always consulted, we are we'll salts
fed that the result arrived at was
just and fair to all the parties.
Upon the second objection above
stated to the effect that the Commits
sion made a fallacious deduction from
the statement of tie earnings of all
other traffic, it may he said that the
discussion of that subject was mainly
by way of argument and for the pur-
pose of testing the reasonab'eness of
the rates by comparison with other
traffic, and for the same commodities
between other points, in which the
defendants, or son of them partici-
pate.
In support of this second objection,
the President Of the New York, Phil
adelphia and Norfolk Railroad Com
rany has filed a statement, entitled,
GA comparison OF the rates charged
by the New York, Philadelphia and
Norfolk Railroad, with rates charged
by other roads on similar articles"
In this statement, the rates are given
in cents per hundred pounds, and per
ton, per mile, using for the purpose
the station of Cape Charles only,
which is the most remote of all the
stations from New York, being 3a6
miles from that city, and 1876 miles
farther distant than the average of
all the stations.
AS was distinctly pointed out in
the former decision of this case, the
i