The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-02
RAILWAY CONSOLIDATION.
4 Powerful Argument for II In the Dan.
willie Rate Case"

From the Des Mofnes Register and LtaGer
The decision Of the United states Court OF Ap.
pcals IN the Danvilc. Va. case. illustrates anew the
unfalrness that results to shippers when compcti.
tion Is relied upon to hx railway freight rates.
Danyllle and Lynchburg are competing cities
for the trade Of the tobacco 6 rowing region Of
Virginia. The southern Railway passes through
Dapville to Lynchburg. but the Chesapeake and
Ohio makes Lynchburg by another route. Dan
vile Is. therefore. not a competing point. while
Lynchburg Is. The result Is the Southern Rail-
way has been charging sl.os on GrSt class trafflc
from Chicago TO Danvillc and only - cents to
Lynchburg, which is beyond. The merchants OF
Danvl!lc appealed 10 the United States Commerce
Commission.
The defence made by the southern Railway
Company. before the Commission was that II II
did not meet the rate made BY the Chesapeake and
Ohio al Lynchburg It would have all the ira ne al
that important point. On the other hand. " should
pare It's rates to Danve and all the other inter.
mediate points 10 meet Its Lynchburg rate, II would
lose annually Sas 900 In revenue. 7 he commission.
not being able to compel the Chesapeake and ONO
to raise Its rate 10 Lynchburs. ordered the South.
en TO lower Its Danrillc rate Ii per cent. This
order tho company refused to obey. and appeal
was taken to the Circuit Court at Danvlllc and
from there to the Circuit Court OF Appeals both Of
which have sustained the contention OF the railway
company.
The Court of Appeals holds tina, competition jus,,.
fes lower rate TO a more distant competing point
and that inc r'Rnl 10 tN6rG" lOWcr fatCS on com
pctlng trafsc is moi destroyed b. the moro fac,
that Incidentally. tho lesser charge 10 tho com.
pr,,tivc point may seemingly give a preference TO
that point. and the greater rate IN tho non com.
pc,iuvc point may appa rentiy cngcndcr dlscrlm.
nation against ~ The rate 10 T,anvIllc being fair
except when compared with the rate TO Lynch.
burg and ,hr latter rate being forced by causes
entirely without the control OF the Southern Rail.
way COMPANY the court says there is no just ground
for ordering reduction.
II Is evident that here Is a typical case OF com
pctlt,yc a,c-maklng. and OF the unjust d!scrm.
ina,ion that inevitably results from II. And IL is
not easy TO escape the conclusion OF the Co, thu,
under existing conditions nothing can he done
about II, The Chesapeake and Ohio cannot bc
compelled TO raise IT'S rate to Lynchburg. on tho
all It's rates TO nee, the LynchhurV rate 1t vii, 60
into bankruptcy and II 1t does not mcc, the Iypch
burg rate while II loses its share OF the Iynchburr
'rafc. DnrVe Is no better n tina n N was before
Those who sull hel!cvc that competition can bc
relied upon To regulate railway rates will be SLOW
consent TO It's elimination, Rut II seem, an.
parent In such cases as this Danvilc and Lynchbure
ease that there are only two methods by which Il
may he reached and both OF them will do Away
with competition. One Is to put the whole rate
making power In the hands OF a national commIs.
sion, the other is to allow competing railways to
consolidate. accompanied BY public supervision
Of and regulation OF charges.
This whole subject IA worthy OF serious con.
sderation. now thatthe merge r decision has brourh
home TO the people the problem of future railway
development. u the consolidation Of railway
ownership 70 be Yeslstedf Or. Atsr the public has
taken the necessary steps u protect tself In the
MISTER Of oAafsss, u sonseSdAucn V b psxmitSeA
nAos sncSursseds Thsss srs important Questions. t.