Evening star., 1898-09-02
THE TRUNK LINE WAR
Canadian Pacific Not Entitled to DIFF
ferential Rates.
MATTER EKHAUNFIVELY CONSIDERED
Decision by the interstate Com
merce Commission.
81 JSPENDING THE LAW

The interstate commerce commission in
the Canadian Pacific passenger rate case
decided today that the Canadian Pacific
is not entitled to the diTerential passenger
rates cOntended for.
The American lines and the Canadian
Pacific have been engaged six months or
more in war in passenger rates between
such points. and also between ST. Paul and
other localities and points on the Pacific
coast which arose from the refusal of
American lines to longer continue allowing
the Canadian Pacific diferential basis
under which fares from the east to
Pacific coast points by that route were less
than those by the American lines by 81 80
on first-class and So on second-class busi-
ness.
Very large reductions in rates have been
made during the contest For instance. the
Canadian Pacific reduced the first-class
fare from Boston to Seattle first from
St1.lI to $40, and then, on March 10 last
TO S35- The latter reduction was mace
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 June so but on June - the SuSpen-
sion was extended by the commission until
January l, 1899, and about the time this
was done the present inquiry was insti-
tuted.
Investigation was had in Chicago Au-
gust l. and the decision now rendered is
based upon the facts then disclosed.
Conduct of the Canadian Pacific.
The commission is unable to find in the
testimony anything outrageous in the con-
duct of the Canadian Pacific in this matter
IL says there may be reasons why this
particular Gifferential ought never to have
been granted, but in insisting upon it that
company simply claimed what numerous
America lines had claimed and what
many were enjoying.
Neither does the commission see any
thing radically wrong in the present atti-
tude OF the Canadian Pacific respecting
the settlement of this question. Its propo-
sltion for drOitration was not unfair
on the other hand, the commission dis
claims any intention to criucise the Great
Northern 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 request for its continuance
the commission finds it necessary to deter
mine whether this claim for a differenual
Is just, and says that ali along this has
been and is the real source of contention
between the parties.
The commission holds that the claim
ade lii behalf of the American roads that
no Canadian road is entitled TO a differ
entail under any American line on any
American business is probably untenable
even from the standpoint of the American
reads. as some Canadian roads, notably
the Grand Trunk. work in close connection
with American lines and the public inter-
est in the reduced rates caused by compe-
tition is not to be ignored.
The DifferentiaI Desired.
Passing to the question of fact whether
at the present tTe the Canadian Pacific
ought TO have differentiaI on the Susi-
ness involved the commission holds that
the distance between New York and San
Francisco by the Canadian Pacific is about
4,OJo as against 5000 miles by the direct
american routes that the Canadian Pa
cltc does not seem to have any business
with the passenger traffic between these
points. and that a diferensial should be
denied on that ground. But the Canadian
Fdctuc does not seriously contend fer a
concession on San Francisco business and
its real claim is that the Gifferential should
Le applied 10 Portland and points north on
tHe racine coast, and upon the Atlantic
coast 10 eastern Canada New England and
the state of New York Between these
sections the Canadian Pacific is i natural
anu feasible route, and should be treated
as l competing line. The time and dis
tSnce by various routes are compared, and
the claim of the Canadian Pacific thai it
ought to have differentiai on account CT
longer time CONSUMED is found t. have
little force. from the fact that ii makes
much better time via St. Paul than over
Ills main line. ard the presumption is that
II could make as fast time over the latter
route railroad must not create dis
ability for the sake of obtaining a differ
entail Every other consideration except
that Of time is against the granting of the
GifferentiaI.
The commission also states that it has
no power TO allow or disallCW the dfferen-
tial in dispute. but would consider i. ex-
ue:nely fortunate if the conclusions
feacned should be made the basis of an
early adjustment The opinion concludes
as follows.
1t must be distinctly understood that
We do not recommend the settlement of
tElS controversy by the making of any
agreement involving arbitration or other
wise which is in violation of the antitrust
law. as Interpreted by the Supreme Court
Of the United States
Such features of the past or future his
tory OF this controversy as may in our
Judgment render appropriate any state
nieEt or recommendation to Congress will
be presented in our annual report to that
tOdy- 80 lar as our official action can af-
IecI he matter we conclude that we
ought not at present to rescind the sus-
tension orders hereto made: but If the
Glfhculty should be adjusted in accordance
with the views above expressed. it may be-
come our duty to revoke the permission
granted by these orders"