The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-09-16


ready been done. but when IL becomes esi-
dent ,aa1 this condition Of things may pc
indefinitely prolonged We feel taat we ouKst
10 res: our action upon substantial ground.
II We are OF the opinion that the Canadian
Pacific - wrong n lis demand Ter diner.
entail however fair In its enforcement, q
thai demand. II would probably De our 1rty
TO continue this relief 20 the American
lines. Upon the ether hand. 4 We believe
that the Great Northern and is American
supporters were clearly wrong IN their po-
sltton. this would have an immediate bear
ing upon our action. We are brougns.
therefore, 20 consider this claim or the
!, should be observed that this is. and all
along has been, the real source OF contsn-
zion between these parties While II IS
probably true that desire TO obtain a
share OF the Klontiike business may nave
led 10 much OF the rate cutting, which IN
its turn produced the present demoraliza-
ton. IL Is also true that the Gnderiying
were finally disposed Of there would be
no serious difficulty in the immediate res
soration of rates.
mission in stating its reasons for the sus-
pension OF the fourth section in the first
instance. but Ii was not formally cons.d-
cred al that time, since but enc party was
heard. Upon efle present hearing the Ca
madam Pacific was asked to fully state the
grounds upon which il based its claim.
and il has presumably tJne SO.
The American lines assert that no foreign
railroad company should be allowed dh-
ferential as against its American compesi-
tor with respect 10 American business.
This IS affirmed not only as a matter OF
fact in this particular case, but, SO 70
speak, as q general proposition applicable
to every case.
To this contention we are disposed to
agree. 1t is open % grave doubt whether
from the standpoint Of the American rail-
road the position is 4 tenable one. The geo
graphical relation OF Canada to the Unit
ed States is such that in several marked
instances Canadian lines form part OF
important through American lines. This
is true OF the Grand Trunk railway, which
in the matter under advissment is the ally
OF the American roads Many Of these
lines formed by a combination Of American
with Canadian roads enjoy differentials.
To deny differential might seriously Grip
pie the entire lire. and might iniure Amer
lean much more than Canadian interests.
But this question is to be disposed Of not
from the standpoint OF the railway alone,
but IN the Interest of the public as whole
Of which the railway is but a part. Ac-
cordng TO the present theory Of interstate
railway regulation, the protection of the
public lies in the competition of carriers.
That competition has unquestionably re-
duced rates enormously in the past, and
Of Canadian roads, and especially OF the
Canadian Pacific read, has had an import
ant influence in the reduction of rates in
certain sections of the United States. Now
to say that a Canadian road shall not un-
der any circumstances enjoy differential
Is TO say IN effect that 1t shall il no case
may carry traffic between points In the
United States, but ii must do so at the
rate fixed by the United States railroad.
The Application of such rule might go
far towards destroying the benefits Of Ca
madam competition.
4 Different Question.
Whether or not Canadian roads should
be allowed 20 participate at all in the car
rying trade OF the United States is much
broader and an altogether different ques-
ton. The will Of this nation, as expressed
in the acts Of congress. does admit them to
such participation, and whether this is
wise or the reverse is Tor the considera-
ton OF congress or the treaty-making
power. This is one OF the subjects which
has come before the commission already
appointed and soon TO begin its sessions
for the purpose of considering various mat
ters at issue between this country and the
Dominion of Canada.
We are brought. then. TO the question OF
fact whether at the present time the Cana
dian Pacific ought TO enjoy differential
upon the business involved.
1t was stated upon the hearing that the
purpose OF a ainerential was to equalize
Disadvantages; and the representative OF
| the Canadian Pacific earnestly contended
| that what his company asked for was not
All advantage over the American lines, but
simply equality with those lines. How
ever Il may be expressed, the purpose of
d.nerentiai is undoubtedly 10 enable lire
to participate in traffic which 1t could
al the same rate as its rivals. 1t is in
essence a device for the distribution of
traffic. AT the basis OF every inquiry into
the reasonableness Of a differential lies
therefore. the question whether the line
claiming II is entitled" to participate in
the traffic involved. To take an ilus-
tratiOn from the present discussion: The
Canadian Pacific claims and has been al
lowed differential on passenger rates be-
tween New York and San Francisco. The
passenger by that route must go from New
D Montreal Montreal n,
couver, from Vancouver by boat 10 San
Francisco. or from Mission Junction all
| rail 20 San Francisco. The distance rougn-
| ~ speaking, is 1000 miles by this route.
| against 5000 by the ordinary direct
| routes. Now. il does not seem TO US that
| the Canadian Pacific has any business with
| az between those points should be denied
| upon that ground. IL it Is allowed TO make
the same rate between those points, tina,
| is the limit 10 which 1t ought 10 so.
| That inquiry, however. is not Of much i'm
portance in the present instance. The Ca
| madam Pacific itself does not serious ly
| contend that this differential should now
| be extended to San Francisco. AS We I'M
derstand the claim of that company, il is
| that the differential should be applied TO
| Portland and points north upon the Pa
citic coast and upon the Atlantic coast to
| Eastern Canada, New England and the
| state OF New York A glance at the map
| or an examination Of relative distances
! shows that the Canadian Pacific between
| these sections is 4 natural and feasible
| route, and that Il should clearly be treat
| Ell Il competing line. Should IL be al
| lowed a difrerential upon passenger traf-
fic. as claimed
| Assuming for a moment that II this COM
| pany does in fact labor under disadvan-
| tages as compared with It's competitors,
| those disadvantages should be eQualized
| by the granting OF differential. let us
| inquire what these disadvantages are. Mr.
| McNiColl was asked precisely that qiies-
| ton. In reply he pointed 20 several minor
| circumstances. but the principal cons:dara-
| tion was that the time by his line was
| longer TAe serious controversy in this
| case is mainly between the Great North
| crn and the Northern Pacific companies
| upon the one hand and the Canadian Pa
| ellie on the other Therefore in cons!1-
| ering ,ta propriety Of This dfferential IL is
| sufficient 10 consider the ZINE and distance
| by the s.. Paul gateway alone COM
| pared with those upon the Canadian Pa
| Cifc So considered. the time from Boston
| TO Seattle is. VIA the American lines. ll5
~ GA&@