The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-01-01
Attorney General Allows the
Railroads to Act.
Refuses to interiors With New
Freight Rates.
rs ONLY ONE REMEDY.
Says Commerce Commission
Must Settle 1t.
He Declares That the Trust
Law Is Not Violated.

eral Griggs has returned to the inter- |
state commerce commission the tran |
script of the evidence taken at hear
ing before the commission in the mat |
ter of the new freight classification, |
with view to action by the attorney |
general under the antitrust law if his /
judgment should warrant the same.
In his letter to the commission. re- |
ferring to the demand of the shippers !
that legal action against the railroads |
be taken, the attorney general says:
You express no opinion upon the !
matter, but properly leave me to de- |
termine whether the facts shown war
rant me in applying for an injunction |
to restrain the operation of the new |
classification on the ground that in |
adopting it the railroad companies vio- |
lated the antitrust law
Discussing the methods of the rail- |
roads, in establishing common classi- |
fication, the attorney general says:
There is an official classification
committee composed of some IA rail- |
road officers from different sections
This committee meets on the call of its
chairman and upon the request of three
members. At it's meetings suggested
changes are considered. Such changes
as the committee, with substantial un-
animity recommend, are noted by the
chairman and Incorporated into a new
official classification which is then sub
ual action. Some so railway companies
thus Independently pass upon the class
ification. They signify their adoption
to the chairman, who, after the official
classification has been adopted, files
with the Interstate commerce commits
sion, in compliance with the law.
Continuing, Attorney General Griggs
says that the legality of the method of
preparing, adopting and filing this Of
ficial classification has never before
been questioned. In fact he says the
question of legality was. not raised in
this case until after the railway officials
had refused, during the course of the
hearing before the interstate commerce
commission, to postpone the time for
the new classification to take effect for
60 to so days Furthermore. says the
attorney general it is apparent from
the protests originally filed with the
commission that it Is the changes made
and not the method of making them
which is complained of.
Taking up this question of the rea-
sonableneSS of the rates. Mr.. Griggs
says:
"a railway company may raise it's
rates to an unreasonable point, it may
discriminate among its shippers, 1t may
charge more for a short than a long
haul, but none Of these acts however
unjust and wrongful amounts to a vio-
lation Of the antitrust law. To auth
oriZe the attorney general to direct an
INDUCTION proceeding under this law it
must be shown that there is contract
combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
several states. In the first place, there
is no contract, combination or conspir-
acy shown. There is consultation by
representative railway men in commit
tee respecting suggested changes in
classification. There is subsequent in
dependent action by railroad companies
in the adoption of the new classifica-
ton recommended by the committee.
The testimony taken does not show
| sion of a combination in adopting the
official classification. 1t must be con-
ceded that a common classification by
! railway companies, operating in the
same territory is a desirable thing.
Will it be insisted that railways can not
consult respecting freight clasSifica-
ton? Or that because one railway COM
pany adopts certain clsssification,an-
! other can not? The antitrust law says
there must be a contract, or combina-
tion or conspiracy. This must be shown.
And it must be shown to restrain indi-
vidual action. This is not shown in the
testimony submitted
Moreover there must not only be a
contract combination or a conspiracy,
but it must be in restraint of interstate
commerce. AS applied to carriers, this
means a combination to suppress conf
petition. 1t is only by suppressing COM
petition and arbitrarily fixing rates, that
a restraint can be put upon interstate
commerce. The filing of an official clas-
SlncallOn does not nX Lne rates. 1t
places articles in certain classes, but
| the rates for the classes are determined
by the railroad companies outside the
| classification.
| "If the railroad company maintains
| the existing rates the change of an ar
| ticle FROM lower to higher class will
| increase the rate, but from aught that
| appears in this testimony every railway
| company using the classification is at
| liberty at any time to change the ex-
| listing rates upon giving the notice re-
| quired by the interstate commerce act.
| Moreover, each railway company is free
/ to take any article out Of the existing
| classification by making commodity
I rate. In other words, no suppression of
| competition, no arbitrary fixing of rates,
no restraint of interstate commerce is
/ shown.
The transmissouri ana joint traffic
/ association cases afford no precedent
+ for the action requested in this case
/ Each of those associations was formed
/ panies selected a central authority to
/ fix and maintain rates. There was an
| absolute suppression of competition The
power of independent action was de-
stroyed. No company could change a
rate fixed by the managers of the as
| sociation without subjecting itself to a
penalty.
| IF this testimony submitted showed
a combination among the railways to
restrain commerce among the several
states, would not hesitate to invoke
the remedy provided by the antitrust
face of the facts submitted would not
only be futile but absurd. If there be
| remedy for the complaining shippers,
it lies In an appeal to your commission
under the interstate commerce law