The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1909-05-31
EXCESS BAGGAGE
CASE Up AGAIN
Railways Claim Schedule Fixed by
Commission Is Discriminatory,
Therefore Unreasonable.

What do you think of a law that
ftxes the rate for the small shipper
at double the rate charged the larger?
This Is what the excess baggage rate,
as ordered by the Michigan railway
commission does?"
This was the summing up of the
argument OF Attorney c. Mcpherson.
for the Perc Marquette railway, in
The final hearing before fudge Muir
ply, Saturday morning, on the excess
baggage regulations made by the rail
way commission.
Several months ago the commission
prepared a new tariff on excess bag
gage carried by travellers representing
wholesale houses The rate was much
lower tnan that charged by the rail
ways, and they objected vigorously 20
Its enforcement. They first applied to
Judge Murphy FOR an injunction re-
straining the commission from enforc
ing the rate. The injunction was re-
fused after a hearing lasting several
days. Then the railways asked the
supreme court for a mandamus com
polling .SSse Murphy TO issue the in
junction. The supre me court refused
the mandamus. and the case was re-
ferred back to Judge Murphy 10 be
heard on its merits. No new evidence
was introduced, the case being sub
mitted on the evidence already heard
supplemented by The argument of at
torneys. Attorney Mcpherson appear
ed for the Pore Marquette; f. o. But
terfield for the Michigan Central, and
Alfred Lucking for the wholesalers.
A number of Detroit wholesalers, 10
whom The matter is OF great interest,
were present In court The new rate
will make difference to Detroit
wholesale houses of more than $780,
600 a year
Mr.. McPhersou claimed that the
new rate was so manifestly discrim-
inatory as to make II unreasonable
and unlawful. He admitted that the
constitution gave the legislature the
right 10 FIX reasonable maximum rates.
but these rates. he held. were not
reasonable. He quoted at great length
from the authorities TO prove his con
tention- that the rates fixed byIaW
should be reasonable, and then pro
duced figures from the proposed tariff
10 substantiate his contention Of its
unreas0nableness Under the new
rate, he claimed, the charge on 2l0
pounds OF excess baggage for 10 miles
would be 10 cents. For the same dis
+ lance the rate on 410 pounds would
be only 8 cents. This, he argued. was
so absolutely unreasonable as TO make
IL illegal.
THE discrimination is against the
law needs 10 argument, he said.
But this new rate not only permits
discrimination, but actually enforces
It."
Alfred Lucking pointed out that the
rinew rate is praC tically the same as
that which has been In force in In
diana for two years. a period Of suf-
4 flcient length to give the railways
time TO produce evidence to show that
4 they were operating trains at loss
He claimed that the old rate was eX-
tortionate and a great burden on De
troit wholesalers He said the new
rate would not entail upon the rail-
way any additional expense, that the
baggage could be handled by the men
Enow employed, and that trains would
not be delayed. He also quoted fig
ures to prove his claim of the unrea-
condolences and extertion of the old
re- He told OF a trial trip made by
representative of Edison, Moore &
Co. from Pontiac to OwosSo dis
lance OF 6S miles. He carried on this
trip lao pounds OF excess baggage.
D and made every stop. The excess
rate charged was $3.50. On the re-
sNurn trip was made from Owosso 10
Detroit without change. distance of
IS miles, ard thu excess charge was
$40. Mr.. Lucking claimed that the
baggage on the first trip was handled
by the regular men on the train ut
no additional cos. TO the railway, and
for that reason il was extortionate
y and unreasonable.
Mr.. Luoking had just started his
argument as court adjourned at noon,
and the hearing will be continued next
N week.