The Detroit times., 1908-11-12
DECLARES SHIPPER
WOULD BENEFIT
UNDER LAW
PERE MARQUETTE CIRCULAR 10
MISLEADING Is CLAIM OF BEN
TON HAReoR ATToRNEY-FAM-
LIAR WITH ROBINSON CASE.

which appeared for the plaintin In the
case OF Robinson vs.. Harmon. receiver,
claims that the circular issued by MI
A. Patriarch. general traffic manager
OF the Pere Marquette railroad. con-
corning the mileage rate law Tor
freight by the car. is misleading ana
does not require the railroads To raise
single rate. Mr.. Patriarche's con-
tention that II will. Mr.. Valentine
claims. should not alarm the shippers
OF Michigan, whom. he says, the law
will benefit by saving them thousands
OF dollars. He makes the following
statement:
The statue was last enacted In
1907, although the general traffic NAH
ager calls IL an old law. II was hrst
passed In 1877, but was re-enacted In
1887, 1889, 1901 and 1907. The statute
covers long-distance shipments. as wen
as short-distance shipments. IL pro-
vides sliding scale OF maximum
charges, varying from 80 cents per
car per mile for l0-mile shipments 10 90
cents per car per mile for the longest
shipments, and leaving the minimum
charges to be determined In all cases
by the railroads themselves. The law
applies to all the railroads In the lower
peninsula. except railroads less than
Is miles In length. The penalty for
the violation OF the law Is 800 for
each offense, to be recovered by the
party aggrieved In an action OF debt.
"The law does not require the rail-
road companies TO raise single rate,
hut merely requires them TO lower GER
tain rates which are now excessive.
especially for short hauls. The statute
provides maximum rates In certain
cases only. as the circular shows. The
duty still rests upon the railroads to
avoid all discrimination by proper
variation OF rates within the maximum
prescribed. 30 that the freight on the
contents of 30.O00-pound car shall
not be as great as the freight on the
contents OF 100.oo0-pound car, especi.
ally II the same commodity Is shipped
in both cars. II the railroads believe
that they should charge less for small
cars than for larger ones, they may o;
course do so.
Division Freight Agent Harry Dean
OF the Pere Marquette Is quoted as
saying: II that rate is made obliga-
tory. It will mean an increase in many
cases OF not less than 800 per cent
over present rates on various kinds OF
raw material We venture TO say
that II that rate Is made obligatory, II
will be made 80 by the railroads and
not by the law. II Is the maximum
hat the law makes obligatory, and not
ny particular rate. Just how a law
providing maximum rates will increase
rates 500 per cent or any other per
cent IL q matter not explained in the
railroad circular, nor In the article
published by the newspapers Mr..
enforcement Is this only, that II does
not prevent the company from making
unjust charges In all cases. In other
words, II does not hit the railroads
hard enough.
"One statement in the Pere Mar.
quette circular Is true, viz, the com.
pany has done all In It's power to pre-.
vent the enforcement OF the law. The
question which the shippers OF the
state will ask Is whether the strenuous
efforts Of the Pere Marquette was IN
the interest Of the shippers OF of the
railroads Of the state. Such altruism
on the part Of the railroad companies
and solicitude for the welfare of the
shippers Is unusual and, we think. will
stand investigation.
There are small shippers In the
state who are losing an average OF a
thousand dollars a year because of the
violation Of this mileage rate law.
There are larger shippers who are
losing ten thousand dollars each year.
The overcharges that the railroads
of Michigan have collected In excess
of the legal charges In the last thirty
years have been stupendous In amount.
or that vast sum by far the largest
portion has been outlawed. Only the
over-charges collected In the last six
years can be recovered. Even II
every shipper that has had to pay
more than the legal rate at any time
during the last six years should sue
the railroad for the hundred-dollar
penalty for every overcharge Of which
ne has been the victim, the railroads
will have made a handsome profit by
having persistently ignored this stat.
ute since IL was first enacted In 1871
General Traffic Manager Patriarche
says that the statute seems to have
been deemed too indefinite and un'
certain for practical enforcement, and
yet his circular states the substance OF
the law with admirable clearness. He
seems to know just what must be
done. He also cites the recent case
OF Robinson VS.. Harmon, receiver. In
which We appeared for the plaintiff
and In which the supreme court said :
1--WE are unable to find the alleged
ambiguity and uncertainty claimed by
defendant
THE provision OF the statute In
question il as follows:
AIN Transporting freight by the car,
loaded by the shipper end unioaded
by the conslanes, no railroad company
shall charge for transporting each OF
said cars more than eight dollars for
any distance not exceeding ten mIIss,
nor more than fifty cents . mile foe
the second ten miles, nor more than
twenty-five eents per mile for the third
ten miles; and for distances exceeding
thirty miles,"
WIFE BOUGHT FOR S2s