The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1910-01-07

Agreements Between Carriers.
The subject of agreements between
carriers with respect TO rates has been
often discussed In congress. Pooling
arrangements and agreements were
! condemned by the general sentiment
! of the people and. under the Sher-
man ANTITRUST law, any agreement
between carriers operating in restraint
OF interstate OF international trade or
commerce would be unlawful The Re
publican platform of 1908 expressed
the belief that the interstate com
merce law should be further amend
ed so as To give the railroads the
right TO make and publish traffic
agreements subject to the approval of
The commission. but maintaining al
ways the principle of competition be-
tween naturally competing lines and
, avoiding the common control OF such
lines by any means whatsoever
In view OF the complete control
over rate making and other practices
OF interstate carriers established by
the acts of congress and as recon-.
mended In this communication, | see
no reason why agreements between
carriers. subject to the act, specifying
the classihcationS Of freight and the
rates, fares and charges for traDspor-
tation of passengers and freight
which they may agree TO establish
should not be permitted provided cop
les of such agreements be promptly
filed with the commission, but subject
10 all the provisions of the Interstate
commerce act and subject TO the right
Of any parties TO such agreements TO
cancel IL as to all OF any Of the agreed
rates, fares, charges, or classlfica-
tiOns by thirty DAYS notice in writing
TO the other parties and to the COM
mission
Complaints BY Shippers.
Much complaint Is made by shippers
over the state of the law under which
they are held bound to know the legal
rate applicable to any proposed ship
ment, without. as a matter OF fact,
having any certain means OF actually
ascertaining such rate. 1t has been
suggested that. to meet this griev-
ance. carriers should be required, up
on application by shipper. to quote
the legal rate in writing, and that the
shipper should be protected in acting
upon the rate thus quoted; but the OBJ
lection to this suggestion is that 1t
OF giving to favored shippers unreason-
able preferences and rebates.
| think that the law should provide
that a carrier, upon written request
by an intending shipper. should quote
in writing the rate or charge apple
able to the proposed shipment under
any schedule or tariffs to which the
carrier is a party and that. II the party
making such request suffer damage in
consequence of either refusal or omis-
sion to quote the proper rate. or in
consequence of a mlsstatement of the
rate. the carrier shall be liable to
penalty In some reasonable amount,
say two hundred and fifty dollars. 10
accrue to the United States and to be
recovered In a civil action brought by
the appropriate district attorney.
Such a penalty would compel the ag-
ent OF the carrier to exercise due dill
igence In quoting the applicable legal
rate, and would thus afford the ship
per a real measure OF protection while
not opening the way to colluslon and
the giving of rebates or other unfair
discrimination.
Excessive Rates.
Under the existing law, the commits
sion can act only with respect to an
alleged excessive rate or unduly dis
crlmlnatory practice by n carrier on
u complaint made BY some individual
affected thereby. | see no reason why
! the commission should not be auth.
orlZed to act on It's own initiative as
well as upon the complaint Of an In
dividunl in investigating the fairness
Of any existing rate or practice; and
recommend the amendment of the law
to so provide: and also that the COM
mission shall be fully empowered be-
yond any question to pass upon the
classification of commodities for pur-
poses OF fixing rates. in Ike manner
as it may now do with respect to the
maximum rate applicable TO any trans
portation.
Under the existing law the commits
| sion may not investigate an increase
| in rates until after IL shall have be-
come effective: and although one or
more carriers may file with the com.
mission a proposed change In rates or
change in claSSifcntions, or other al
formations of the existing rates or
| classifCations, to become effective at
the expiration OF 80 days from such
! filing. no proceeding can be taken to
| Investigate the reasonablenesS of such
| proposed change until after II becomes
| operative. On the other hand. II the
commission shall make an order find
ing that an existing rate Is excessive
and directing 1t TO be reduced. the
carrier affected may, by proceedings
in the courts, stay the operation of
such ORDER of reduction for months and
even years.
1t has, therefore, been suggested
that the commission should he empow-
cred. whenever a proposed increase In
rates is flled. at once. to enter upon
an investigation OF the reasonable
ness Of the increase and to make an
order postponing the effective date of
such Increase until after such inyeS.
tlgation shall be completed To this
much objection has been made on the
part OF the carriers. They contend
that this would be. In effect TO take
from owners of the railroads the man
agement of their properties and to
clothe the Interstate commerce COM
mission with the original rate making
power-a policy which was much dis.
cussed at the time OF the passage of
the Hepburn act In l905-06, which
was then, and has been. distinctly re.
jected and in reply TO the suggestion
that they are able, by resorting 10 the
courts, to stay the taking effect OF
the order of the commission until It's
reasonableness shall have been lnves