Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-01
NO COMBINATION SHOWN
The Attorney General on Redistribution of
Freight Rates.
Says That Remedy for Shippers Lies
In Appeal to Interstate COM
merce Commission.

IN cCnciudlng letter TO the interstate
commerce commission upon the complaint
OF shippers that the Redistribution of
freight rates east of the Mississippi was a
violation of the antitrust law the Attor-
ney General says:
III the testimony submitted showed a
combination among the railroad companies
to restrain commerce among the several
states | would not hesitate to invoke the
remedy provided by the antitrust law, but
10 take such action upon the faith of the
facts submitted would not only be futile
but absurd. II there be a remedy for the
complaining shippers, it lies in an appeal
to your commission under the interstate
commerce law
The Attorney General refers to the Off
cial Classification which had been adopted
by the classification committee of the rail-
roads. and to the protests of shippers. He
says that the railroad people at the hear
ing held before the commission refused to
postpone the time for the classification to
take effect. insisting that they would be
willing to consider complaints and correct
changes which the practical operation of
Their the rule s should prove to be unjust. They
stated that they could not ascertain the
erect OF the cases until the classification
had been tried. In passing upon the mat
ter the Attorney General says:
THE protesting shippers assert that in
creases in rates, to the extent effected by
these changes in classification, are with
out justification. and will result in excess
slVe charges upon most, If not all. of the
articles in question. They also allege that
hardship and injustice will further result
from the changes which will be made in the
relation of rates, and especially from the
Increases In the difference between car load
and less than car load charges.
Not Violation of Anti-Trust Law.
1T is apparent from the protests origi-
nally filed, and from the resolution and
from your own communication that it Is
the charges made, and not the method of
making them. which is complained of. IN
der the classification which has obtained
for many years, all freight is divided into
six classes. For these classes the railroad
companies fix graded rates. A change from
lower to higher class would increase
the rate If the existing rates are main
tanned. It Is against the increased rate
thus produced that the shippers protest.
They claim: 1. The changes will result
m unreasonable rates; 2, in unjust discrir,-
ination against the small in favor of the
large shipper; 3. in charging more for
short than long haul. Obviously, these
are matters for the consideration of
the interstate commerce commission.
railroad company may raise it's rates to an
unreasonable point; it may discriminate
among it's shippers: it may charge more
for short than long haul; but none of
these acts however unjust and wrongful,
amounts to violation of the antitrust
law.
ITO authorize the Attorney General to
direct an injunction proceeding under this
law, it must be shown that there is a CON
tract. combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
several states In the first place, there is
no contract combination conspiracy
shown. There is consultation by repreSel-
tative railroad men in committee respecting
suggested changes in classification. There
IS subsequent Independent action by rail-
cad companies in the adoption of the new
classification recommended by the commit
tee. The testimony taken does not show
that any railroad company acted under
Ccmpulsion of combination in adopting
the official classification. 1t must be con-
coded that common classification by rail-
read companies operating the same terri
tory is a desirable thing. VIII it be insist
ed that railroad companies cannot consult
respecting freight classification! Or that,
because one railroad company adopts GER
tain classified ton, another cannot? The an
THRUST law says there must be a contract
or combination. or conspiracy. rms must
be shown. And it must be shown to re-
strain individual action. This is not shown
in the testimony submitted.
Restraint of Commerce.
Moreover, there must not only be a con-
tract, combination or conspiracy, but 1t
must be in restraint of interstate COM
merce. AS applied to carriers, this means
a combination to suppress competition. 1t
is only by suppressing competition and ar
bitrarily fixing rates that a restraint can be
put upon interstate commerce. The filing
of one official classification does not fix the
rates. 1t places articles in certain classes,
but the rates for the classes are deter
mined by the railroad companies outside
the classification. If a railroad company
maintains the existing rates the change of
an article from lower to higher class
will increase the rate but, from aught that
appears in this testimony, every railroad
company using the classification Is at lib
erty at any time to change the existing
rates upon the notice required by the inter-
state commerce act. Moreover, each rail-
road company is free to take any article
out of the existing classification by making
commodity rate. In other words, no sup
preston of competition, arbitrary fixing
of rates, no restraint of interstate COM
merce IS shown
1.-The Trans Missouri and Joint Traffic
Association cases afford no precedent for
the action requested in this case. Each of
those associations were formed by a con-
tract, under which the companies selected
d central authority to fix and maintain
rates. There was an absolute suppression
of competition. The power of Independent
action was destroyed. No company could
change rate fixeu by the managers Of the
association without subjecting itself to
penalty"