Los Angeles herald., 1905-02-24
RAILROADS IN
UNLAWF Ill POOL
DECISION BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMISSION
ORANGE RATE UNREASONABLE
Ruled That the Southern Pacific and
Santa Fe Are Combining to Raise
Freight Charges on Citrus
Fruits


Fruits
BY Associated Press
WASHINGTON, Feb 23.-The inter-
state commerce commission, in an
opinion by Commissioner Clements, to-
day rendered its decision in the Cali
fornia orange cases, brought by the
Southern California Fruit Exchange
and the Consolidated Forwarding COM
pany against the Southern Pacific and
Atchson, Topeka & Santa Fe railway
systems, in which 1t holds that the de-
fendant carriers are unlawfully en-
gagged in pooling the traffic in citrus
fruits originating in Southern Califor-
MIA, and carried by them and their
connections to eastern markets; that
the defendants by compelling the
shippers to pay icing charges as estab-
lished by the car lines have made such
charges part of the cost of transporta-
ton and subject to regulation under
the law, and that the rate on oranges
in carloads from Southern California to
points on and east of the Missouri
river are unreasonable and unjust.
The rate on lemons is held to be
reasonable and present refrigerating
charges are held to be not unreason-
able.
This decision by the commission is on
questions reserved in a former de-
cision by the commission in the same
cases which prohibited carriers from
denying to shippers of citrus fruits
from California to eastern markets the
rights of directing over which of the
established lines the shipments should
be carried.
Rulings of Commission
Rulings are made as follows in the
decision now rendered:
The carriers minimum carload
weight of $4,000 pounds on citrus fruit
in refrigerator or ventilator cars from
Southern California points to eastern
destination is not unreasonable with
Whether or not the regulating statute
applies to refrigeration charges in all
cases, the defendants, by compelling
shippers to pay icing charges in citrus
fruits as established by the car lines
or do without necessary refrigeration
for the traffic have made these charges
a part of the cost of transportation
and subject to regulation under the
law.
The refrigeration charges applying
on these shipments of citrus fruits to
eastern markets have been reduced
during the tendency of these pro-
ceedings and the present charges for
refrigeration are not found, on the rec
ord in this case, to be unreasonable.
Engaged in Pooling Traffic
The defendant carriers are unlaw-
fully engaged in pooling the traffic in
citrus fruits originating in Southern
California and carried by them and
their connections to eastern markets,
but further action on that branch of
the proceeding is reserved by the com
mission in view of the pendency in the
United States supreme court of an APP
Eecl from a like decision of the circuit
court for the southern district in South
ern California in a suit brought by the
commission to enforce it's order as tc
the routing regulation above men
toned,
The defendant carriers present rate
of 81 per 100 pounds on lemons in car
loads from Southern California to
points on and east of the Missouri
river is apparently reasonable.
The defendant carriers rate of $1.25
per 100 pounds on oranges in carloads
carried from Southern California to
points on and east of the Missouri
river is unreasonable and unjust, and
in the opinion of the commission it
should be reduced fifteen cents per 100
pounds, but If the time of service to
eastern markets should be restored to
the old basis as indicated by eight
days to Chicago and twelve days to
New York, rate as high as $1.15
NOulQ pSlllupo bt anu iNoSohopiN'
Commissioner Prouty concurs in the
proposed order and recommendation of
the commission, but does not agree
with some of the facts found and con-
clusions drawn in the majority opinion.
Orange Rate Unreasonable
Such concurrence is based on the
ground that the SIPS rate on oranges Is
unreasonable because theSsime neces-
sary in transporting these fruits to
eastern markets has been greatly
heightened. Chairman Knapp dissents
from the decision. The chairman says
that in several important particulars
the findings in the majority report do
not accord with his understanding Of
the proofs, while the inference therein
drawn is not warranted in his judg-
ment by due consideration of all the
facts and circumstances entitled to be
taken into accouM., and further that
avian if tha snecific findings in the