The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-11-27
Equal Rates to All.
Continued From First Page.)

Continued From First Page.)
thinks proper or not to bind himself
to employ the company in other and
totally distinct business
In Menacho " Ward. q Fed. Rep.
529, where the court was enlightened
by the argument of Frederick Coudert
and Jas. G. Carter on opposing sides.
it was held that 'a common carrier
cannot charge a higher rate against
shippers who refuse to patroniZe it
exclusively" President Hadley in
his Railroad Transportation" los, a
valuable work by no means unfavor-
able to railroads, says: "A difference
in rates, not based upon any cores
ponding difference in cost, constitutes
case of discrimination" In Rail-
road V. Goodridge, 149 U. S. $50. it
is said: cit is no proper business of a
railroad company as common car
rier to foster particular enterprises
or to build up new industries; but
deriving its franchises from the leg
islature and depending upon the will
of the people for its very existence.
it is bound to deal fairly with the
public. to extend them reasonable
facilities for the transportation OF
their persons and property, and to
put all its patrons on an absolute
equality" This would not be the
case if a patron shipping logs to Will
mington must pay higher for that
service than one who subsequently
shias lumber.
Among the numerous cases con-
demning discrimination, and holding
that freight paid in excess of that
charged others for the same service
can be recovered back, are Hays V.
Penn. Co. II Fed. 309 and cases cited
in note thereto; Handy V. Railroad,
supra, spicy opinion by justly in
dignant judge. 1t was held that
charging from New Orleans TO San
Francisco lower rate on goods ship
ped to New Orleans from London
than upon the same goods shipped
from New York to New Orleans was
an unjust discrimination, and illegal.
Interstate Commerce Commission V.
Railroad, So Fed. Rep. 1877. 1t is not
the question of profit to the carrier.
so the court holds in attracting snip
ments which would not otherwise
come to it, but the injustice of charg-
ing differing rates for the same SER
vice, and the court quotes with APP
p1oval the English decisions, Harris
" Railroad, 8. c. b. IN. Sd 693; Ev-
ershed V. Railroad, 2 q. b. Div. 254,
that preferences given to shippers TO
induce them not to divert trafflc from
the carrier, or to induce them TO
transfer traffic which otherwise would
and cannot be justified upon the
ground of profit to the carrier allow
ing them'' To similar purport,
Wight V. U. S. 167 U. S. 512; Packet
Co. V. Railroad, 60 Fed. 545; r. r. "
Wilson 1872 Ind. SIT and many others
Even when the discrimination is based
on a larger quantity being shipped. 1T
is illegal when the smaller quantity.
as in car load lots, is no more to
handle in proportion to the quantity
Kinsley v. Railroad. 81 Fed. Rep. Isl,
approving Hays V. Penn. Co., supra.
The vice in the discrimination here
shown is twofold. Cd 1t necessarily
tends if allowable, TO build up de-
PENDANTS railroad and break down
competing carriers, which is forbid
den by public policy. Joint Traffic
Case, I'll u. S. at p. sos. CD The
condition upon which the right to
the lower rate was given was secret,
not written on the face of the sched-
ule which, as reported to the railroad
commission and printed for public in
formation, was $3.50. A secret rebate
is prohibited by statute and by all the
decisions of the courts, yet this re-
bate of 40c. not allowed to the plain
tiff has amounted to $4,000 in five
months time.
The testimony of railroad officials
in the report to Congress of the Indus
trial Commission, volume p. 273 and
volume 8 D. 131. shows that the
method of discrimination resorted to
are many, and that manufacturers
especially can be made or destroyed
at will of railroad managers unless
there is the most absolute and exact
equality to all in the same charge
for the same service. Vol. 8 PIP. 287
2S9. Report of Industrial Commission
Interstate Commerce Commission v.
Railroad, 12S u. S. So, is one instance
of an ingenious discrimination The
present case is another. Discrimina-
ton is Protean in the divers forms it
assumes. The argument in all coun-
tries in favor of governmental owner
ship of railroads is based upon the
deadly effect of discrimination in rates
under private ownership, and the diff
ficulty in preventing it. rather than
upon higher rates. The condition
unon which private ownership of rail-
roads can or will be maintained in
England and this country (whic~
alone retain IT'D is the strict and effec-
tive enforcement of equality in charge
to all for the same service, under the
same conditions and at the same
cost-as is required by the statutes
State and Federal
The defendant cannot justify under
what is known as Milling in Tran
sit Those are cases where freight
is shipped a long distance and the