The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1905-12-19
COMMISSIONER
RENDERS REPORT
Miners Charges Against Con-
sOIidated Are Sustained.
NO DISCRIMINATION INTENDED
Company Must Permit Plaintiff 10 Unload
In Canal Street. Yard, or an Order
VIII Be Made.
NO DISCRIMINATION INTENDED

Harrison A. Mckcnney, OF counsel for
ID. w Miner received last night the re-
port of the interstate commerce commis-
sion in Mr. Miners complaint against the
New York New Haven and Hartford
Railroad company The action alleged
undue discrimination on the part OF the
company in favor OF MI Miners com
! petitors Ia the wholesale meat business
Commissioner Prouty held a hearing on
the matter Sept. 25th OF this year. In
the opinion received last night the charges
are sustained and the commission an
nouncos It's decision TO make an order in
! favor OF Mr.. Miner unless the railroad
company permits him 10 unload cars at its
Canal street yards. IL finds that by de-
hycring the cars OF fresh meat to be un-
loaded in the west yard the company in
fiicts on the complainant a pccuniary loss
varying from $50 to 800 FOR every car
unloaded.
The finding also is that the railroad
company might without serious nterfer-
ence with other users of the yard, permit
Mr.. Miner TO unload his consignments Of
beef, amounting TO three or four carloads
week, shipped here from ST. Louis. Mo-.
under refrigerators. While the opinion
sustalns the complaints IL also expressly
OF no intended discrimination against the
complainant with reference to the con-
struction TO be placed on the sta atute the
report says:
1T seems to have been assumed by the
defendant that IL 1t permits the complain
ant 10 unload his carloads OF meat i'm
the Canal street yard II must also permit
the unloading OF all per'ishable commodi
ties at that point, II required
I'VE do not so construe the statute.
There Is no such competitive relation be-
tween fresh meat and fruit for example,
that it is OF necessity an undue discrimi-
nation 70 accord a privilege TO the one
commodity which is refused 10 the other
II might as well be said that no distinc-
uOn could be made between perishable
and non-perishable articles.
"The defendant. acting in good faith, al
though perhaps Influenced by the above
that 1t cannot properly I'm the operation
OF Its road permit the complainant 10 un-
load It's meat in the Canal street yard.
The commission has found as matter
OF fact that IL might under existing con
ditions permit such unloading at that
point. that TO deny this privilege costs
the complainant from $50 to 500 per car
load and that under all the circumstances
the defendant ought 20 allow II.
1T Is not clear whether the action OF
the defendant In this particular consti-
commerce. The competitors OF the COM
plainant by virtue of their occupancy OF
their storchouses on the canal which
they in 40 way derive from the defend
ant, enjoy an advantage OF locality which
the complainant does not. and it Is by no
means certain that this carrier is recog-
nizing that advantage and declining to
accord the complainant privilege which
In the honest judgment OF its officials
cannot properly be accorded IL guilty OF
any undue prejudice against him.
ut has, however. seemed clear TO us
that the complainant ought not, under the
circumstances. to be subjected TO this
very considerable and entirely unneces-
sary pecuniarY damage; that the defend
ant. having II In It's power to put the com
his competitors, ought in justice 10 do so.
and that it's refusal is an undue preju-
dice against the traffic or the complainant
THE defendant ought not TO in our
judgment decline 10 make deliveries 10
the competitors OF the complainant who
occupy these buildings abutting upon its
beef track, for to do SO would be unneces-
sal'y waste OF opportunity. but IL ought.
IN so far as II reasonably can TO put the
complainant upon q level with them.
I'VE have decided. therefore. to make
less the defendant. upon further con-
an order I'm favor OF the complainant un-
sideration. shall see M to permit the un-
loading of these cars in it's Canal street
yard.
overlook the consideration that no order
OF ours can he made binding upon the
defendant until n has passed the scrutiny
OF the courts. while II we err In our
-c0ustructfoff-.f-t -law- against the COM
DIainant. he, has no relief. since from our
decision he cannot appeal. II the doubt
flI question were one ~ fact, when our
ending might have some evidentiary
force. Il would bc otherwise