New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-09-03
CANADIAN PACIFIC BEATEN
INTERSTATE COMMISSION REFUSES TO
ALLOW DIFFERENTIALs.
DECISION BASED ON THE FACT THAT DIFFER
ENTAIL IMPLIES A DIsADvANTAGE-A
CHANGE IN THE ROADS
CONDITION.

ENTAIL IMPLIES DlsADVANTAGE-A
CHANGE IN THE ROADS
CONDITION.
Washington Sept. 1.-The Interstate COM
MERGE Commission by decision to-day in the
matter of the passenger rate disturbances Of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad. involving the pro-
priety OF dlfrerential passenger rates between
Eastern points and the Pacific Coast. held that
the Canadian Pacific Is not entitled TO the dif-
ferential contended for. The case is one OF the
most important that has been before the COM
mission for n long time, the American Railroad
lines and the Canadian Pacific having been en-
gagged six months or more In war In passenger
tariffs between the East and the West. the de-
cision says
The Commission holds that the claim made In be-
half OF the American roads. that no Canadian ROAD
is entitled a difrerenta under any American me
on any American business. is probably untenape'
even from the standpoint OF the American roaus'
as some Canadian roads, notably the Grand trunk,
work in close connection with American lines, ana
the public interest in the reduced rates causeu ny
competition is not to be ignored.
The Commission. however. states that II mas
No mower to allow or to disallow the difrerential
in dispute but would consider IT extremely
fortunate II the conclusions reached should be
Commission In conclusion says:
II must be distinctly understood that we DO not
recommend the settlement OF this controversy by
tho making OF any agreement. involving arbitration
or otherwise which is in violation OF the anti
trust law as interpreted by the United states
Supreme Court. Such features or the past OF
future history Of this controversy. as may IN our
judgment render appropriate any statement OF
recommendation to Congress- will be presented IN
70 ha
ncia, action can affect the matter. we conclude
that we ought not at present to rescind the sus-
pension orders heretofore made but II the dinicuty
should be adjusted in accordance with the views
above expressed 1t may become our duty 10 revoke
the permission granted by those orders
CAUSE OF THE RATE WAR.
The passenger tariff war involved in this dis
mute also applies between st. Paul ana other To-
cali.ies and points on the Pacific Coast. Inc
trouble arose from the refusal OF American lines
longer to continue allowing the Canadian faclhc
n dfferential basis under which fares from the
East to Pacific Coast points by that route were
legs than those by the American lines by - oo
on Arst-class and s. on second-class business
Large reductions in rates have been maze our
ing the contest. The Canadian Pncihc reduced
the first-cla fare from Boston TO Seattle hrs'
from S71 4, to $40 and then. on March last 10
So This was after the Commission mao sus-
pended the long and short haul clause 10 enaoe
the American lines to meet the rates mace oy
the Canadian Pacific This order to expire
an June 80 but June y the suspension was
extended by the Commission until January !,
1890 and about the time this was done the pres
ent INJURY was instituted An investigation was
held in Chicago on August l, 1888. and the de-
cison now rendered is based upon the iacts
then disclosed. The decision says
The first agreement for a differential in favor OF
tho Canadian Pacific was In 1855. when the traps
continental Association was formed. Inc dreat
Northern became a transcontinenta line In 1898,
and made large reductions in passenger rates from
ST PAM TO the Pacific Coast, and II subsequently
agreed to give the Canadian Pacific an all-rail
connection to Seattle. Tacoma and Portland, In
return for which the Canadian Pacific diferentials
through St Paul were waived. and the Great North
crn obtained train service to Vancouver.
CHANGES DUE TO KLONDIKE TRAVEL.
The difrerentials were however. continued on the
Canadian Pacific main line until after tho United
States Supreme Court decided the Trans-Mississppi
Freight Association case under the antitrust law.
The then existing Transcontinental Association
was thereupon dissolved. The Klondike travel soon
after assumed considerable volume. and the Cana
dian Pacific found upon inquiry that tickets were
being sold by the American lines at from $40 to SIS
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 tina.
this was not material to this investigation. In
which the differental is the real matter at issue.
The Canadian Pacific offered to arbitrate tho
differential question provided the old rates
should first be restored but this was during
the heavy KlonGlke business. and the American
y.
without any condition and the American roads
appear to have consented, with the exception
Of the Great Northern. The other American
lines afterward came around to the Great
Northerns view.
The Commission Is unable to find in the testi-
mony anything outrageous in the conduct Of
the Canadian Pacific in this matter. 1t says
there may be reasons why this particular differ
entail ought never to have been granted. but in
insisting upon it that company simply asked
what numerous American lines had asked and
what many were enjoying
Whatever induced 1t TO openly reduce its rates,
the Great Northern and Northern Pacific. It's chief
competitors had cut their rates in wilful violation
of the law. and thereby not only abolished the
differena, but took substantial differentlal for
themselves. If the American lines deemed the
difrerentia unwarraned. they should have pub
lished a rate which ignored II.
THE REAL CONTENTION.
Neither does the Commission anything radi
cally wrong in the present attitude of the Cana
dian Pacific respecting the settlement OF this
question. Its proposition for arbitration was not
unfair. on the other hand, the Commission dis
claims any intention to crtIcse the Great Northern
for refusing 10 arbitrate. In view Of the aid
granted to the American roads by suspension OF
the long and short haul clause. and the request
Z its Commission
sary 10 determine whether this claim for differ
entail just and says that all along this has been
and is the real source Of contention between the
parties.
The Commission holds that the claim made IN
behalf of the American roads that no Canadian