New-York tribune., 1899-12-31

OF the testimony It was repeatedly suggested
that your Commission had power TO take
official action at that time. but that after the
classification had gene into effect 1T would be
open to shippers to make formal complaint In
voking the remedy provided for unreasonable
rates and unjust determinations by the inter
state Commerce law. During the course or the
hearing the shippers who were present protest
ing against the changes requested the carriers to
postpone the time for the official classification 10
take effect for sixty or ninety days. rms re-
quest was refused. the carriers insisting thaI
the effect Of the changes could only ne deter
mined by experience. and stating they would De
quite willing TO consider complaints and correct
changes which practical operation should prove
to be unjust. 1t was after THIS request IoI d
postponement had been refused that some or the
shippers presented to the Commission the reso-
luton and petition which you have transmitted
THE SHIPPERS COMPLAINT.
This resolution recites that whereas the
changes made by the new official classification,
by increasing less than carload rates over car
load rates will greatly inure TO the Deneut Oh
the large shippers and TO the detrnelt s .. Tue
small shippers, and whereas a postponeWeh' Oh
their operation has been refused, therefore the
shippers petition the Commission to lay the tes
timony before the Attorney General III Oruet
that he may take action under the Antitrust
law to prevent the official classificauon from
going into operation ,.., 49,,
testimony and papers Which sho" Tue ia'''
above detailed. you say:
These changes in classification are to be made
FOR the conceded purpose OF increasing the rates
on the articles advanced, and thereby increasing
the revenue derived by the carrier from the trans
narration Of such articles. The number and va.
riety OF articles advanced are shown by Hs' oi
The protesting shippers assert that Increases IN
rates to the extent effected by these cnanggS @ III l
classification, without justhcatloh ana VIII iii l ~
suit in excessive charges upon most II not an ot
the articles In question rHey sytSaT alTo result from
tie changes which will be made In the relatlo az %
rates and especially from the Increases IN tne aosd
ference between carload ana less Una" '"''o'1
charges.
its apparent from the protests originally hied'
from the terms Of your order OF the otn II ms, h
from the resolution and petition presenter ny
tho shinpers and from your own conln1uhlCa-
, tion that II ia the changes made, ana not the
method OF making them, which Is complalheu ol
Under the classification which has oDtaiheu IoL
many wears all freight Is divided INTO SIN
oIossas For these classes the railroad COM
NAMES fix graded rates. A change from lower
10 a higher class would increase the rate II tne
existing rates maintained IL IS agalisl t,re
Increased rate thus produced that the shippers
protest They claim % The changes wiz ~, re-
suit in unreasonable rates ~ III uhJua's ~
elimination against the small IN iavoI VI tiIe
large shippers; 90 in charging more lo' d ST.. ST..
than a long haul. Obviously these are mat'eIS ,
for the consideration of the Interstate ColIi- @
rnarca Commission 4 railroad company may
nGse tts rates 70 an unreasonable point; it may
discriminate among its shippers; IL may chai
more for short than a long haul Dut none VI
these however UNJUST anu
amounts 10 a violation of the Antitrust law
NO CONSPIRACY SHOWN.
To authorize the Attorney General 10 olrect
Injunction proceedings under this law IL musl
he shown that there Is contract comDlha
ticn or conspiracy in restraint OF traue
or commerce among the several states.
In the first place. there is no contract COM
bination or conspiracy shown. TheIe is con-
euItation bv representative railroad men IN
committee respecting suggested changes In clas-
sihcation There is subsequent independent ac
tion by railroad companies In the adoption Oh
the new classification recommended by the com
mittee The testimony taken does not sho"
that any railroad company acted under com,
nuIsion OF a combination in adopting the of1clai
classification It must be conceded that COM
mon classification by railroad companies oper-
ating in me same territory is desirable thing
VIII It be insisted that railroad companies can
not consult respecting freight classification!
Or that because one railroad company ADOPTS
certain classification, another cannot? The Anti
Trust law says there must be contract or
combination or conspiracy. This must be
shown And 1t must be shown to restrain IN
dividual action. This is not shown in the testi-
mony submitted. ..
Moreover, there must not only be a contract
combination or conspiracy, but 1t must be In re-
straint of Interstate commerce. AS applied 10
carriers this means a combination 10 suppress