The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-31
NO RESTRAINT OF TRADE
AND COMPETITION Is NOT SUP
PRESSED BY THE RAILROADS.
Each Line Fixes the Rates Provided
I'm the Classiflc cat tion-Consol
tion of Michigan Roads.

WASHINGTON. Dec 3o-Attorney Gen.
eral Griggs to-day returned TO the Inter-
state-commerce Commission the transcript
of the evidence taken at 8 hearing before
the commission last week In the matter or
the new freight classification. with a view
to action by the Attorney General under the
antitrust law, If. in his judgment. the case
warranted the same. The attorney gener-
ais letter follows:
''Gentlemen-I am I'm receipt OF your COM
munication of the 18th inst, and nave given
the matter such careful consideration as
the limited time at my command has per-
mitted.
''It appears that on the sth inst the In
terstate-commerce Commission ordered an
inquiry with respect TO certain changes IN
freight classification made by 'ofhcial class
ification No. 20 which is 10 take effect Jan.
l. 1900 AT the conclusion OF the testimony
taken at the hearing on the list and I'd
inst, certain protesting shippers requested
that a transcript OF the proceedings pe
transmitted to the attorney general, claim
ing that q violation of the antitrust law
had been shown. Accordingly you nave
transmitted copies OF official clasincations
Nos ~ and 20 copy OF the order Tor the
hearing, a transcript OF the proceedings,
and a copy of the resolution ana peutlon
OF certain shippers. You express no opin-
ion on the matter, but properly leave me
TO determine whether the facts shown war
rant me in applying for an injunction 10
restrain the operation OF TIE new Siassi-
fication on the ground that In adopting X
the railroad companies violated the anti
trust law.
''The interstate-commerce act went into
effect in 1887. To comply with It's pro-
visions IL was necessary Tor. the raltroao
companies operating In the same territory
TO simplify their freight classincauoH ~
cordingly, at the convention or the ran
roads, a committee was appointed 10 prs.
pare an official classification and submit
il TO the companies for their adoption. ms
was done, and an Official classification was
adopted, which was nled with the inter
state-commerce Commission, ana went iheo
effect April l, 1897. Since that time nineteen
official classihcations have been prepared.
submitted TO the railroad companies.
adopted and filed. During the current year
two classitcauons were nieu' N1c e.rce, on
Feb. /, 1888. and No. - now In force) On
July /. 1883.
USED BY MANY ROADS.
.'It appears from the testimony taken
before you that this official CLASSIFICATION IL
used substantially by the carriers operat-
ing in that part of the United States north
of the Ohio and Potomac rivers and east
of the Mississippi river. There is an on
cial classification committee composed OF
some fourteen railroad officers from differ
ent sections. This committee meets on the
call of it's chairman or upon the request
of three members. At Its meetings sus-
pested changes are considered. Such
changes as the committee with suDstantai
unanlmity recommend are noted py the
chairman and incorporated into new
official classification, which Is tnen SUD-
mitted 10 each company for Its lndividual
action. Some sixty railroad companies
thus independently pass on the ciassinca-
ton They signify their aoopuon 10 the
chairman. who. after the official classitca-
ton has been thus adopted, nles IL WITH
,ha TrtarState-commerce Commission. In
compliance with the law.
"The legality OF the method OF preparing.
adopting and filing the official classification
has never before been questioned. nor, In
deed was IL questioned In the complaints
leading to your order Of the Sth inst.
which were that the changes are -oiscrimi-
mating and wrongful and Will suDJect snip
pers and shipments I'm the territory affected
10 unreasonable charges and unjust dis
elimination and undue prejudice and disad-
vantage The hearing was had TO permit
the carriers TO explain 10 the shippers the
reasons for the proposed changes. with
view 10 an amicable adjustment Of the dif-
ferences. During the course OF the tesu-
mony IL vas repeatedly suggested that
your commission had no power TO take
official action at that time. but that after
the classification had gone into effect 10
would be open to shippers TO make formal
complaint. invoking the re;nedy provided
for unreasonable and unjust discrimina-
tions by the interstate-commerce law. Dur
ing the course of the hearing the shippers
who were present, protesting against the
changes requested the carriers 20 postpone
the time for the official classification TO
take effect for sixty or ninety days This
request was refused, the carriers insisting
that the effect OF the changes could be
determined by experience, and stating they
would be quite willing TO consider COM
plaints and correct changes which prac-
tical operation should prove TO be unjust.
'It was after this request for postpone
ment had been refused that some OF the
afeH Ice ksmf-~
resolution and position. which you have
transmitted. This resolution recites that
whereas the changes made by the new
Official classification. by increasing less
than carload rates over carload rates.
will greatly inure 10 the benefit OF the
large shippers and TO the detriment Of the
small shippers: and whereas. a postpone
ment OF their operation has been refused.
therefore the shippers petition the commis-
sion 10 lay the testimony before the attor-
ney general in order that he may take ac-
ton under the antitrust law TO prevent
the official classification from going into
operation.
REASON GIVEN FOR CHANGES.
'In your communication. after transmit
ting the testimony and papers which show
the facts 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 car
rier from the transportation Of such arti-
cles. The number and variety OF articles
advanced Is shown by list OF the same
annexed. as above stated. The protesting
shippers assert that increase I'm rates. to
the extent effected by these changes IN
classification. are without Justification ana
viii result In excessive charges upon most.
IL not all. OF the articles In question They
also allege that hardship and injustice win
Further result from the CHANCES which viii
be made In the relation Of rates and eopor