New-York tribune., 1908-12-12
"scHo0L" AND COnuUT4TIoy RATES.

The letter of Chairman Wilcox of the Public
Service Commission to the Staten Island Rapid
Transit Company regarding its discOntnuance
of school rates takes the same position as the
earlier opinion OF the Public Service Commits
sion in the % District 1t advises the railroad
that the. opinion Of the Interstate Commerce
Commission does not apply to such rates when
wholly within this state, and that the continu-
ance of such rates is extremely desirable to
the public interest and therefore it suggests
that such rates be resumed, but it does not order
their resumption. 1t seems improbable that the
commission has the power TO make any such
rates or compel the railroads to continue giving
or 10 resume giving them. The commission
can hold as it apparently has held that school
rates are not discriminatory within the meaning
of the New York State law-althOugh the Inter
state Commerce Commission has taken con-
tTary view of the interstate commerce law
and therefore it may permit railroads to give
them, but it has no express authority to COM
pei railroads TO make them, or indeed, commu-
tatiOn rates either.
The power of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission over Communication rates is discussed
by Mr.. Borden D. Whiting, of the New Jersey
Railroad Commission, in The Columbia Law
Review Under the interstate commerce law,
Section %, commutatiOn rates are expressly
permitted, being regarded by the Interstate
Commerce Commission a form Of discrimina-
ton which the law sanctions, but does not, and,
indeed, cannot, compel. School tickets not hav-
ing been mentioned in the law, appear to have
been regarded as a form of discrimination, in
favor Of which no exception was made, and
therefore prohibited The Interstate Commerce
Commission has repeatedly held that it had no
power to compel the making of communication
rates. In the case of Sprigg agt the Baltimore
& Ohio Railroad Company. decided before the
commission had the rate making power. but
reaftrmed in principle since the commission
received that power, it discusses the whole
subject of the authority Of Congress over com
mutation rates. and holds that railroad can
not be compelled to make such rates or TO re-
store them If il has withdrawn them. The Opin-
ion says:
In whatever aspect the question is considered
the argument for complainants comes to this
that carriers can be compelled under such cir
cunstances are disclosed in this case, to
put in discriminating rates. provided they are
not unduly discriminating. Because they are
permitted TO sell communication tickets therefore
they be forced do SO. At least, II they
have sold such tickets for a considerable period
they can be required TO continue 10 sell them,
although at rate much below the sum justly
charged to the general public. There is legal
basis for such a contention. II we had full rate
making power, as ample and complete as that
possessed by the Congress itself we could not
make such an order.
That is an unqualified declaration that Con
gress itself has not the power to compel the
making of communication rates. And Chat doc
trine seems TO be asserted by the United States
Supreme Court in Lake Shore * Michigan
Southern Railroad Company agt Smith, de
cided in 1880 holding Michigan statute direct
ing the sale Of 1,000-mile tickets at lower rates
than those fixed for ordinary trip ticket pas
sengers 10 be unconstitutional. The Court said
that the question n that was whether the
ed M yiF.anu ka
transportation of passengers" had also the right
"to discriminate and make an exception in ia vor
''of certain persons, and give to them a right of
transportation for less sum than the gen
'eral rate provided by law" The Court held:
The power of the Legislature to enact general
Laws regarding company and it's affairs does
not in0luda the poSgar to ooxnkel it e make an