The record-union., 1898-09-03
Important Decision by Interstate
Commerce Commission.
Relating to the Trouble Between Canadian
Pacific and American Roads.
The Finding Against the Foreign
Company, Though the American
Lines Are Not Granted All They
Contended For.


Contended For.
WASHINGTON, Sept 2.-The Inter-
state Commerce Commission in the Ca
| naclan Paclhc passenger rate case de-
cided to-day that the Canadian Pacific
is not entitled to the differential pas
| senger rates contended for. The pas
senger tariff involved in this dispute
also applies between st. Paul and other
| localities and points on the Pacific
! Coast, which arose from the refusal of
American lines to longer continue al
| lowing the Canadian Pacific differen-
| tial basis under which fares from the
East to Pacific Coast points by that
route We're less than those by the Amer
lean lines by $50 on a first-class and
! 50 on second-clasS business Very large
reductions in rates have been made
| during the contest. The Canadian Pa
! cific reduced the first-class fare from
| Boston to Seattle first from S11.15 70
| $40, and then on March 10th last to
300. This was after the commission
| had suspended the long and short haul
| clause to enable the American lines to
! meet the rates made by the Canadian
Pacific. This order was to expire on
June Both, but on June 9th, the sus-
pension was extended by the commits
sion until January l, 1899, and about
the time this was done the present in
quiry was instituted.
| Investigation was made in Chicago on
August 1, 1898 and the decision now
rendered is based upon the facts then
disclosed. The decision says:
THE first agreement for differen
tial in favor of the Canadian Pacific
was in 1883, when the Transcontinen-
tai Association was formed. The Great
Northern became a transcontinental
line in 1898, made large reductions in
! passenger rates from st. Paul to the
Pacific, and it subsequently agreed to
give the Canadian Pacific an all-rail
connection to Seattle, Tacoma and
Portland, in return for which the Ca
madam differentials through ST. Paul
were waived, and the Great Northern
obtained the train service to Vancouver.
The differentials We're, however con-
| tinued on the Canadian Pacific main
| line until after the United States Su-
preme Court decided that the Trans
Missouri Freight Association came
under the antitrust law. The then
existing TranscOntinental Association
was thereupon dissolved. The Klondike
travel soon after assumed considerable
volume, and the Canadian Pacific found
upon inquiry that the tickets were
being sold by the American lines at
from so to SO less than their tariff
rates, the concessions being made
through increased commissions allowed
to ticket agents. The American lines
asserted that the Canadian Pacific had
also cut the rates, but insisted that
this was not material to this investiga-
ton, in which the differential is the real
matter at issue.
THE Canadian Pacific offered to ar
btrate the differential question, pro-
| viGed the old rates should first be re-
stored, but this was due to the heavy
KIondike traffic, and the American lines
refused. Subsequently it made this Of
fer without any conditions and the
American roads appear to have con-
serted, with the exception of the Great
Northern. The other lines afterward
/ came around to the Great Northern
view"
The commission is unable to find in
the testimony anything outrageous in
the conduct of the Canadian Pacific in
this matter. 1t says there may be rea-
sens why this particular differential
ought never to have been granted, but
insisting upon it that the company
simply claimed what numerous Ameri-
can roads had claimed, and what many
were enjoying. Whatever induced it to
openly reduce its rates, the Great
Northern and Northern Pacific it's chief
competitors had cut their rates in will
full violation of the law, and thereby
not only abolished the differential but
took substantial differential for them
selves. If the American lines deemed
the differential -unwarranted they
should have published rate which ig-
ncred it.
Neither does the commission see any
thing radically wrong in the present at
titude of the Canadian Pacific respect
ing the settlement of this question. It's
proposition for arbitration was not un-
fair. On the other hand the commits
sion disclaims any intention to criticise
the decision for refusing to.arbitrate.
In view of the aid granted to the
American roads by suspension of the
long and short haul clause, and the re-
quest for its continuance, the commits
sion finds it necessary to determine
whether this claim for a dfferental is
just, and says that all along this has
been the real source of contention be-
tween the parties.
The commission holds that the claim
made in behalf Of the American roads
that no Canadian road is entitled to q
differential under any American line on
American business is probably unten-
able, even from the standpoint of the
American roads, as some Canadian
roads, notably the Grand Trunk. work
in close connection with American lines
and the public interest in reduced rates
caused by competition is not to be ig-
nored.
The application of a rule that q Cana
dian road shall in no case charge less
than an American road might go fur
ther toward destroying the benefits of
Canadian competition. Whether or not
Canadian roads should be allowed to
participate at all in the carrying trade
of the United States is a much broader
and altogether different question Tn
der an Act of Congress they are now
admitted to such participation, and
whether this is wise or the reverse is
not seem to have any business with a
traffic between these points. and that
a differential should be denied on that
ground. But the Canadian Pacific does