The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1898-05-11

1t gave the shipper, who paid unreason-
able freight charges, the right to bring
suit for excessive charges paid. Says
the report on this point (pages AID:
THE fact, if it be a fact, that, after
protest, remonstrance, and the payment
OF excessive and unreasonable charges,
the shipper may bring suit for the
amount of the difference between the
lawful and unlawful rate, is neither an
adequate nor an equitable remedy. Nor
is 1t an actual execution of the law
which requires charges to be reasonable
and just. The growers of grain, do
nestle animals, cotton the producers of
property, making up the bulk of inter-
state shipments are not as a rule ship
pers They sell to dealers on the basis
of the published rate, however unreal
sonable, and so actually pay the trans
portation charges, however excessive.
only the dealer who ships, to whom in
the main it does not rignuully belong,
AAAASAeS ~ any Ouc COulu, ICCOVGr LQ0 GX-
cess OF unlawful charges Prevention,
by fixing and establishing reasonable
rates of charges in advance, is the only
practical legal remedy for extortion and
unreasonable and unjust charges. Rates
to competing and distributing centers are
not, for the most part, unreasonably
nigh; they are frequently quite low.
Inc mass of less populous cities and
towns, small, intermediate, financially
weak, and less important shipping places,
and the shippers to and from them,
which most need to have reasonable
transportation rates secured to them by
a law which shall be so plain that nei-
Their the interstate commerce commits
sion, nor the courts, can misunderstood
nor misinterpret it's meaning.
The producer does not ship directly
to market, but sells to the middleman
VINO ships to market and pays the cost
of transportation. Grain, cotton, hay.
and the products of the dairy, are han
died in this way. Now, in all these
cases, while the middleman actually pays
the freight, very little, if any, of the
loss, in case of an unreasonable charge,
falls upon him. If the rate on cotton
from Dallas to Boston is advanced 81
per bale, either the cotton planter re-
ceives that much less for his product or
the New England mill pays that much
more for its raw material, or the loss is
divided between the two. The cotton
factory that handles the product loses
nothing whatever. If the rate on flour
from Minneapolis to New York is adj
vanced % cents per barrel, the problem
becomes trife more complex, but the
probability still is that the miller loses
little if anything. The real hardship
falls upon the farmer, who produces the
wheat out of which that flour is made.
or the consumer, who uses the flour at
the other end of the line So, too, the
rule is of very little consequence to the
merchant, provided it is the same to
his competitors as to himself. He adds
to the cost of his goods in the market
tho expense of transporting them to the
point Of distribution, and the sum total
is their cost to him, upon which he
makes his profit. An advance in coal
rates to particular locality does not
affect the coal dealer His customers are
the losers.
Nov, the only person under this law
who can sue the carrier and recover
Judgment for an excessive freight rate
is the person who actually pays the
freight money. The real loser can by
no possibility recover any part of this
extortion. The price of wheat in Sioux
City is fixed by subtracting from the
price in Chicago the rate from Sioux
City to Chicago. If the rate is 3 cents
higher than it ought to be, the Iowa
farmer receives cents less for his
wheat. The trader who buys this wheat
and sends 1t to market is absolutely un-
affected by the rate, and yet he, not the
farmer, is the only person who can re-
cover from the carrier the unreasonable
exaction."
A careful reading even of these brief
extracts from the official report of the
Interstate commerce commission is
enough to convince any man that tnz
action Of the federal courts has utter
ly destroyed the power Of the commits
sion to afford any relief whatever. For
10 years the commission has been trying
to adapt itself to the circumstances with
which it was surrounded. Under it's
present chairman, VIM. R. Morrison, for
many years a congressman from Illinois.
it has been making considerable head
way against unjust interstate rates. As
it says elsewhere in it's report, out of
1876 formal orders made, 6S were for a
reduction of rates. None Of these were
made without hearing all the evidencs
the companies had to produce. Now
comes the supreme court and sweeps
away it's entire authority to order rates.
1t can continue to sit like a mummy in
glass case and hear complaints; =. can
ind rates Unreasonable" but it can not