The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1901-10-14
Discrimination in Rates Be
tween Wheat and Flour.
CALL ON PRESIDENT
Position of the Millers as Explained
to Roosevelt.
THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION
MiIIers Would Have It's Powers In
creased so Long Wait for Court
Action Could BE Avoided.

From The Jastr1saI BtareaSs. Room 49, POa
Building, HIashd'lgsO'a
Washington, Oct. 14.-By the call on
the president the other day Of com
mittee OF millers, headed by E. P. Bacon
of Milwaukee, MIR. Roosevelt's attention
was officially called to what Is obviously
one Of the greatest questions before his
administration, and that is the relation
Of the railroads to government regula-
tion, through the interstate commerce
commission or otherwise. These millers
told the president a very simple story
They said that the discrimination in
freight rates between what and -four for
export is 50 much in favor Of the wheat
as to result in transferring the business
Of milling for European consumption to
the other side. They allege that wheat
and flour are carried at essentially the
same rates in domestic trade, but that
the difference in the export rate ranges
from to 10 cents per 100 weight, aver
aging 6 cents.
This makes it of advantage for England
to import wheat instead OF -four, and COM
mercial statistics show, they say, that
we are exporting only 100000 barrels
OF flour as against 1872 900, 900 bushels OF
wheat Were the rates on the two COM
modities the same, they believe English
men would buy OF US -four instead OF
wheat, which would mean an increased
business for the United States Of $50, ,OOO,-
.1,,1s-
erage and trade in the off hauls. like
bran, etc. They accordingly ask the
president to recommend in his message
legislation which would give the inter-
state commerce commission power to en-
force its findings and wherever it found
a discrimination to stop 1t.
This is the old argument in favor of
what is essentially the Cullom bill, that
has long been before congress. 1t is pre-
sented here in a particularly effective
form in the respect that the export trade
is involved, and so, on protective prin-
ciples, appeals as a measure for build
ing up home industries. The case is,
therefore, worthy o. investigation.
1t is, perhaps, typical IN that the dis
elimination seems to result not so much
from real differences in cost Of handling
the two commodities as in the different
bearing which water competition has upon
them. Water lines by way OF the gulf
compete much more seriously in carry
ing the raw material than the finished
product. The warm temperatures to be
passed through in going south, the great
er investment and the higher insurance
on the finished product, all contribute to
make the water route more advantageous
for wheat tina. sor flour. Even on the lakes
equal facilities do not exist for carrying
-four and grain. Only what is nown as
Line boats" are equipped for carrying
flour and other package freight, and these
are said by the interstate commerce COM
mission to be In all cases under the con-
troll OF some railorad company in con-
nection with which they are operated.
The wild boats,' on the other hand.
carry wheat, but do not, so far as the
testimony shows, carry -four. In conse-
quence, the rate on flour is much better
maintained, even on the lakes.
The Interstate commerce commission
made a careful study Of this question of
export and domestic rates and particu-
larly the discrimination in export rates
between wheat and -four in a decision
made on Aug. Z, 1899, which appears in
a sixty three-page pamphlet covering the
whole subject. It's conclusion Is con-
tained in this paragraph:
This commission is OF the opinion that pub
lie policy and good railway policy alike re-
quiTe the same rate upon export wheat and
-four. Such rates tend to develop both the
industries Of the United States and the traf-
fc Of the railroads. We are not, however,
here settling national or railroad policy. We
are simply administering the act to regulate
commerce; and in view OF all conditions as
We find them, do not feel that charging q
somewhat higher rate on -four than on wheat
for export is in violation of that statute. We
do think that the published difference is too
wide, and that the rate upon -four for export
ought not to exceed that upon wheat by more
than cents per 100 pounds
The millers naturally desire that COM
mission whose views are so much on their
side should have the means Of making
them effective. Such Is not now the
case. The supreme court has decided that
the Interstate Commerce Commission has
no authority under the law to fix any rate
as a maximum. that this power has been
left to the railroads themselves. The
commission may hear complaints which
are lodged with 1t. The supreme court
has not decided that the commission may
not find an unjust discrimination from the
testimony thus presented or that it may
not describe the relation OF rates and is
sue an order to that effect
From that point, however the Interstate
Commerce commission becomes a plaintiff
The process of enforcing its orders is at
tended with so many difficulties that they
do not accomplish their purpose. The
commission cannot issue any process but
merely has power to ask the United States
circuit court to enforce its order Then
the railroads make issue, as they have a
right to do and the case is tried over
again. The matter hangs in that court for
some time, when it may go to the circuit
court of appeals, and after hanging around
there for a year or two, go to the supreme
court of the United States. BY the time
it is finally decided nobody cares very
much how. The original parties in inter-
est may have gone out of the business.
What the commission desires is authori-