The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-09-16
QUESTION OF uFFERENI|MS


Continued From Page SIX
cDuves. and through carr every day from
Aontxeai 70 yaacozves. Il has steamship
f .v vi 2 1s nb. = II ts sn name e
any Of III rivals, perhaps ot any American
rsiread. ID more generally known through
cut the civilized world than y thar of the
Canadian Pacific
Puget sound Grows.
Sor q this all. When this aifferentiA
Ess sirss grartss business 10 Pacific coast
points weoe largely ID San Francisco
practically none Of !: went north o. van
CONVEX Il was largely IN consideration u
that tact tia. the d.1erential Was then
allowed Today shis is No, 50. The great
volume q traffic By these r0rsh trans
continental Kres is TO Puget SOUND, or
Ten years ago the Canadian Pacific vas
ou, % the direct lire OF travel between
the Eas. and the Pacific coast: To-Day !. =
the direct ltne FOR large portion o. iAas
trassc.
Ii has already been said that tire reaa
contest is between the Northern f'acilic
the Great Northern and the Canadian "a
csfc, and II has been further said tnas tof
the purpose Of just comparison ING
Grand Trunk and It's connections should
BE- treated as the initial he between CHI
cago and New Engiand and between chi
cage and Eastern Canada. II. upon this
basis these three lines are placed side oy
side as competing routes between the TER
ritory In question east and west. wnai Is
the result In location. distance, construc-
ton, equipment, through car service, repu-
tatlos. facilities for obtaining business,
scenic attractions. the Canadian Paclic
would not for a moment admit It's Inferior
think that Tire mere fact that that com
rsauy elects to take mere TIME tfiafa KS
competitors by Its bes, line. waise II sst0-
ally makes substantially the SAME time
by It's inferior iisss, entities 1t under al
these circumstances to dtferental.
There Is still another consideration which
differentiai is firmly grounded IN the RAFT
road policy Of certain portions OF the
United States and is approved by man
Of the greatest railroad authorities, IFS
application lie by no means universal. The
testimony in this case shows that there
are no diferentiais west OF Chicago. II
is understood that none prevan IN fhe
South The use Of the differential Is al
most exclusively confined TO trunk line te'-
ritory or TO rates made by combinations
of those III that territory which carry the
trunk line diTerentiaL The conditions
there are such perhaps As 10 emphasize
more strongly than elsewhere the AeceS-
sity for some expedient OF this kind.
II is evident that In all the great extent
of country where there Is no differentiai
there must be at many competitive points
and between many competing lines dts-
advantages and disabilities which are not
equalized. This must be true between the
the general passenger agent OF the North
ern Pacific and Mr.. McNcoii. Of the Cana
dian PaciIic, stated that IN their opinion
the Great Northera could not, under pres
ent conditions, obtain ar. equal proportion
OF passenger travel with the Northern Pa
cfsc at the same rate. aud Yet the Great
same thing must be true OF other lines az
other points, yet al these lines have agreed
not to ask a differential
Now. under these circumstances We do
;,.lr eli ~eyf- ErA ls-t ss~ "A
American Canadian. ough, 70 insist
upon the introduction of the dinerentsal
into this territory. unless j, plainly. ap-
pears that under the application OF tho
ipresen. rule that line is at clear and
manifest disadvantage.
This we think should be true Of an
American line. and al the more IS it true
of the Canadian Pacific. That road is
ernirentiy Canadian institution. II WAS
built largely by government aid ana for
government purposes. 1t operates. 10 be
States, but the traffic IN question passes
throughout almost the entire distance over
the Canadian lire. We are satisfied that
IL this Canadian corporation comes into
The United States to compete for traffic
between points Ii the United States. II
should lie content to operate upon the
same terms with It's American competitors.
unless those terms a~e clearly UNJUST ana
unreasonable. II ought not to come into
this territory and insist upon 81 different
order OF things than II finds there.
clear beyond all question. by SO doing ii
becomes n disturber of rates and OF the
railroad situation.
In considering this diifereAilal question
we necessa rily relied upon the testi-
mony. which il not altogether satisfactory.
II IL quite possible thar some material fact
may have been omitted from that testi-
mony ard not therefore. considered by Us.
Once corcetiing the principle Of the differ
entail probably the only satisfactory tost
OF !ts justice Is ats actual results. and
nothing material of that kind appeared ia
the present case. 1t seemed TO us, how
ever. upon the case as made that no di'-
fcrontiai whatever ought 10 be introduced
Into this territory in favor of the Cana
dian Pacific, and upon that point We nave
felt very little hesitation
Eastern Conditions.
II would seem. however. thai II should
be emitted 10 make as low a rate as Is
made by any American line and attention
Is called 20 the fact that under the opera
ton Of the trunk line diffcrent!als this
would not be true of fares from New
York II the present diferenttals OF the
Canadian Pacific We're abolished.
The New York Central Is what is called
standard road. and under the rules O,
the Joint Traffic Association IL must
ard Chicago S more than certain other
OF the lines between those points: This
enters into the rate beyond Chicago.
which is made by certain additions TO The
Chicago rate. No lower rate can oe maGs
than by the way Of Chicago. TIE Cana
dian Pacific forms Is connection between
New York and Montreal via the New
York Central, and while there ara other
possible routes by diffeTentiai lines b.
tween these points there Is 10 other rFac-
teal route. The result Is that the fare
by this line between New York and Seat
tie would apparently by s. more than by
some other lines, although the passenger
only passes over the New York Central as
far AZ Albany. and the fact that be leaves
New York BY that line would proba by
be CT little consequence in determining;
the trarscontinenial route. II seems q
us that this apparent inequality should
be- corrected.
The idea above suggested that the Cana
dian road should not ask 4 diYercnttai IN
competing for traffic between points in The
United States applies WITH equal force Il
- - IL 80