The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1909-05-29
EXCESS BAGGAGE
CASE UP AGAIN
Railways Claim Schedule Fixed by
Commission Is Discriminatory,
Therefore Unreasonable.

What do you think OF a law that
fixes toe 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 Pere Marquette railway, in
he final hearing before Judge 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 than 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 Judge Murphy TO issue the III
junction. The supreme court refused
the mandamus. and the case was re-
ferred back TO Judge Murphy to be
heard on its merits. No new evidence
was introduced. the case being sub
mltted on the evidence already heard,
supplemented by The argument OF at
torneys. Attorney Mcpherson appear.
ed for the Pore Marquette; K. o. But
terfield for the Michigan Central, and
Alfred Lucking for the wholesalers.
number of Detroit wholesalers, to
whom The matter is OF great interest.
were present n-eearts-The- ew-rate
will make difference to Detroit
wholesale houses of more than $780,
COO year.
Mr.. Mcpherson claimed that the
new rate was so manifestly discrim-
inatory as TO make 1t 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 by law
should be reasonable, and then pro-
duced figures from the proposed tariff
TO substantiate his contention OF its
reasonableness. Under the new
rate, he claimed, the charge on 2l0
pounds of excess baggage for 10 miles
would be IS cents. For the same dis
lance the rate on 40 pounds woulu
be only cents This, he argued, was
so absolutely unreasonable as TO make
1t illegal.
The discrimination is against the
law needs no argument" he said.
But this new rate not only permits
Discrimination, bur actually enforees
It."
Alfred Lucking pointed out that the
new rate is practically the same as
that which has been In force In In
diana for two years, period or sut-
ticient length TO give the railways
time TO produce evidence to show that
they were operating trains at loss
He claimed that the old rate was ex-
tortionate and a great burden on De
troit wholes alers He said the new
rate would not entail upon the rail-
way any additional expense, that the
baggage could be handled by the men
now employed. and that trains would
not be delayed He also quoted fig
ures tn prove his claim of the unrea-
sonablencss and extortion OF the old
rate. He told OF trial trip made by
a representative Of Edison. Moore &
Co, from Pontiac TO Owosso. a dis
lance OF GS miles. He carried on tails
trip LAO pounds of excess baggage,
and made every stop. The excess
rate charged was $3.50. On the re-
turn trip was made from Owosso TO
Detroit without change. a distance of
&c miles. ard the excess charge was
$40 Mr.. Lucking claimed that the
baggage on the first trip was handled
by the regular men on the train at
no additional cost to the railway. and
for that reason II was extortionate
and unreasonable.
Mr.. Lucking had just started his
argument as court adjourned at noon,
and the hearing will be continued next
week t-----------