The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-09-16

" seats reserved Tor LadieA x
7O6 SECOND AVE. Z
S,sss@s@s@@a@@@@33e3@a%~~s
the rates Of the Canadian Pacific were met
in Our own office" The method by which
Il was done Ia the Office seems 20 have been
by the payment OF excessive commissions.
TRANSPORT. nental tickets are largely sold
by agents OF the western lines in the east.
the com pensatioE OF the agent being in the
form OF commission upon the ticket sold.
These commissions were very much in
creased. with the expectation that the
agent would divide his commission with the
purchaser; that g, the railway expected
and understood that this ticket would be
sold by its agent for less than the pub
iiahed rate.
Klondike Attracts Attention.
| About this time. the latter part OF 1857.
mining operations in the klondike began
10 attract a considerable volume OF traffic
to Puget sound points The Canadian Pa
ciiic. claiming that 1t was not obtaining a
fair share of this traffia. al once proceed
cd to inquire into the cause OF il. 1t caused
TO be bought in various parts Of the terri
tory IN question, tickets via the American
lines. and Their connection. the Grand
Trunk Railway Of Canada, not only Of
agents. but over the counters of some of
the eastern connections OF these roads.
These tickets We're bought at from $40 10
SIS below the tariff rate, and In some in
stances even more.
Mr.. McNicoIl testified that the Canadian
Pacific railway In this contest for business
did not depart from the published rate to
MS knowledge, and further testified that
The reduction In the open rate by his COM
pany was induced solely BY the secret acts
OF his competitors Upon the other hand.
the American lines while claiming tina:
the Canadian Pacific had not uniformly
Observed its tariff rates asserted that the
insistence OF the Canadian line upon the
dinerental in question was the real cause
or the controversy, ana that Speclflc ln-
stances of rate cutting were immaterial
for the purposes OF this investigation.
This reduction was, of course. made with
a view 10 finally obtaining restoration OF
normal conditions, and efforts were al once
begun and seem 10 have been continued by
all parties interested 70 bring about some
adjustment. The Canadian Pacific at first
refused to consider the question with the
American lines until rates had been re-
stored 10 what they were before the reduc
ton This the American lines declined TO
do. for the reason that the Canadian Pa
cine would thereby enpoy the benefit OF
this differential and would obtain an un-
due snare Of the heavy kIondike business
which was then moving. Subsequently the
Canadian Pacific expressed a Willingness
| TO submit TO DISTINGUISHED arbitration al
| matters at variance between the parties
without the previous restoration or former
rates To this ali the American lines seem
10 have assented at first. except the Great
Northern company. That company in
slsis that the Canadian Pacific * not en-
titled to a differential and declines 10 sub
nit that question to arbitration or TO con-
Sder any cosn promise of these differences
which involve the granting OF a differsn-
| tai. The other American lines seem for
! the most part TO have come to the came
| way OF thinking.
\ good deal Of bitterness was exhibited
| between the parties upon the hearing. The
conduct Of the Canadian Pacific was char
acEarized by the American lines in the
strongest terms as unreasonable and an
| justifiable. IL Was alleged that this for
| eign road having in its power 10 inct al
most untold damage upon its American RI
| walls. had eNtorted without reason the a.
! lowaGce Of this d.fferential.
We are unable 10 find in the testimony
anything outrageous in the conduct of the
Canadian road i'm this matter. II may have
originally used it, power 70 tn}iict injury
AZ 4 means of Obtaining the allowance Of
| this dinerential and IL il did that Is pre-
| ciseIy what in a greater or less degree eF-
| cry road which obtains a diferenual. or
! an advantage In the sfaape Of a dlnerent!al
/ does. Possibly. is power to iniiict injury
without cofresp Unaiug Injury 10 itself may
/ have been exceptional. There may DE rea-
| s0gs why this particular differenilal ought
| never 20 have been granted. but II the df-
feNntiai principle II 10 be admitted At all.
! II can hardly he said that the claim 30 one
when originally made by the Canadian Pa
! cite was utterly without foundation. In
/ insisting upon II. that company was simply
+ claiming what NUMEROUS American lines
tad claimed and what many of them were
enjoying. Va find nothing in the negotia-
tens which led 10 the readjBsiuent az
/ that differeGraI In 1S5 which savors OF
] undue con<traiut upon the part Of the Ca
/ madam Pacific Whatever motive may have
/ influenced this road ID openly reducing It's
| yates. II - difficult 10 see what better
| course il could take In View OF existing con-
/ dltlons. The Great Northern and Northern
/ Pacific It's ctiiet competitors. III wil!ful Vi
| oiatlon OF the law which they are required
| 10 obey had not only abolished the differ
/ entail. hUt were taking In Some instances
! a. least . substantial diferential for them
| selves. The Canadian Pacific claims that
| AZ 81 result OF these practices business was
| undGlv diverted from rs route. Ought the
| Canadian Pacific 20 have INDUCED IN SIM
| liar practices? Obviously not If the
| American lines deemed the d.nereniial IN
| Warranted they Should have published 3
| rate which Ignored IL
Present Attitude of 4. T.
Neither ID We see anything radically IN
| fair IN the present attitude 90 the Cana
| dian Pacl8c to this question. A recognized
| method az settling differences between
| competing lines - hy arbitration and the
arfie,es OF many railway associations pro-
| vide fa- such arbitration when there
! fa~e. the Cana dan road proposes - ssit,-
| m. - the tlnaI determination II ous or
me- .ts-l-.s EsSi,i r =. the adl3sfufs II
! cg taeSa suatferS IN difference with is
Ar1ertcAg Fu1'Uet tors SIS t,Css.t.or - in
St.actlvely fslJ - h. far ore Il NAV -
wrong ia .t~ cont tnE-an. tIt i can hardly
oo s'i3 - u~@ tae n A"d' e. tae high
N3C3@ ~ enforcing tnAT ecute-tsan
Tbs IL Ect iGtsnav1 aEf nus ne lee
I taken as 4 criticism usrca me attitude Of
! ine Great Northern road s0 70 ..srr2g SO ar
/ citrate - aeletT "a particular cuntr - ~
ST. cT ShtA Tot 10 submitted - ar...tg.,-
tiaa = % question io- tie parties .ssterez s-
J 81 TIE 5;reas Nor ha~u c0.,,~g.y fr,~i<.s
f1at 1hefe * a. tie aotieal - THIS ca-tro-