The Detroit times., 1908-11-13
DECLARES SHIPPER
WOULD BENEFIT
UNDER LAW
pERE MARQUETTE CIRCULAR is
MISLEADING IS CLAIM OF BEN
TON HARsoR ATToRNEY-FAM-
lLlAR WITH ROBINSON CASE.

W BENTON HARBOR. Mich. Nov. II.
&c. M. Valentine. a member OF the
law firm OF Valentine & Valentine.
which appeared for the plaintiff In the
. case OF Robinson vs.. Harmon. receiver.
claims that the circular issued by MI.
N "A. Patriarch. general traffic manager
E OF the Pere Marquette railroad. con
cerning the mileage rate law for
& freight by the car. is misleading and
Z does not require the railroads to raise
single rate. Mr.. Patriarche's con-
X tention that 1t 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
abatement:
"The statue was last enacted In
F; 1907. although the general traffic man
ager calls 1t an old law. II was first
passed in 1877. but was re-enacted in
4 1887, 1889, 1901 and 1907. The statute
covers long-distance shipments, as well
Is short-distance shipments. 1t pro-
vides q sliding scale OF maximum
'charges, varying from so cents per
car per mile for 10-mile shipments to 20
cents per, car per mile for the longest
ohipmenssl, end leaving the minimum
4 charges to be determined in all cases
BY the railroads themselves. The law
applies to all the railroads in the lower
k peninsula. except railroads less than
h rs miles in length. The penalty for
h the violation OF the law Is 800 for
each ofYense, to be recovered by the
marty aggrieved - an action Of debt
s'The law does not require the rail-
Il 1oad companies to raise a single rate,
but merely requires them to lower GER
tain rates which are now excessive.
Especially for short hauls. The statute
provides maximum rates in certain
r cases only. as the circular shows. The
\ duty still rests upon the railroads to
& avoid all discrimination by a proper
XEariation of rates within the maximum
prescrfbed. SO that the freight on the
contents of a 30.000-pound car shall
b not be as great as the freight on the
b contents of 100,000-pound car, especi-
ally IL the same commodity Is shipped
h in both cars. IL the railroads believe
That they should charge less for small
D cars than for larger ones, they may OF
4 course do so.
"Division Freight Agent Harry Dean
2oI the Pere Marquette is quoted as
t1nyfng: III that rate Is made obuga-
& tory. II will mean an increase in many
eases 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
VIII be made 90 by the railroads and
Z not BY the law. II Is the maximum
That the law makes obligatory, and not
X any particular rate. Just how a law
providing maximum rates will increase
rates 500 per cent or any other per
tent Is q matter not explained In the
xaIlroad circular, nor In the article
Ipblished by the newspapers. Mr..
( leans objection to the law and it's
enforcement Is this only. that II does
4 lot prevent the company from making
Un5ust charges In all cases. In other
words, It does not hit the railroads
hard enough.
One statement In the Pere Mar.
<4Qette circular il true. viz. the com.
EDony has done all In its power to pre-.
<eut the enforcement of the law. The
4uestion which the shippers OF the
r<ate will ask is whether the strenuous
@40rts OF the Pere Marquette was in
<pe interest Of the shippers or OF the
oilroads Of the state. Such altrpism
- the part Of the railroad companies
md solicitude for the welfare OF the
ippers Is unusual and, we think, will
(nnd investigation.
mere are small shippers in the
VINO are losing an average of a
0usanu dollars year because OF the
zoiation OF this mileage rate law.
<ncre are larger shippers who are
.ln8 ten Thousand dollars each year.
overcnarges that the railroads
micnigan nave collected In excess
k the legal charges In the last thirty
IL nave been stupendous In amount.
Rk mat vast sum by far the largest
pQp mas been outlawed. Only the
fer-charges collected In the last six
4rs can be recovered. Even IL
xory shipper that has had to pay
ore than the legal rate at any time
4r1ng the last six years should sue
20 railroad Tor the hundred-dollar
~uaify Tor every overcharge OF which
has been the victim. the railroads
1u have made a handsome profit by
swing persistently ignored this stat
to since 1t was first enacted I'm 1877
General Trafic Manager Patriarche
MS that the statute seems TO have
IN deemed too indefinite and un-
Drtnin for practical enforcement. and
~ his circular states the substance Of
- law with admirable clearness. He
omo TO know just what must be
cno. He also cites the recent case
k Hobipson vs.. Harmon. receiver. in
mich we appeared for the-pl plaintiff.
md In which the supreme court said
We are unable TO find the alleged
nhiguity and uncertainty claimed by
ofcndant.'
rThe provision OF the statute In
Iuestion II as follows:
IN transporting freight by the car.
1oGed BY the shipper and unIoaded
~ che consIonee, no railroad company
5nl) charge for Transporting each OF
lid cars more than eight dollars for
ny distance not exceeding ten miles,
- more than fifty cents mile for
- second ten miles, nor more than
twenty-five cents per mile for the third
~ miles; and for distances exceeding
Nifty milss.'"
x<Rnf ss~prnHO NAV DAD nNOr