The San Francisco call., 1910-05-07
DECISION
FAVORS SHIPPERS
Charge of $3.50 for Spur Track
Delivery Declared Illegal
and Unjust
Industrial Siding Held to Be
Part of Terminal Facilities
of Railroad

state carload freight to or from in
dustries located upon spur tracks or
side tracks within their switching linn
its when such carload freight is NOV
ing incidentally to a system line haul,
is condemned as illegal and unjust by
the interstate commerce commission in
decision just handed down in the
case of the Pacific Coast jobbers and
manufacturers association against the
Southern Pacific and Santa Fe rail-
roads. A similar decision was made
in the complaint of the associated job
bers of Los Angeles against the Santa
Fe and the Salt Lake route
LANE WRITES DECISION
The decision was written, on the Los
Angeles complaint, testimony in that
case having been heard by the COM
mission first. Franklin K. Lane wrote
the decision, which was concurred in
by the entire commission, with the ex-
ception of Knapp. Separate concurring
opinions were. filed by. Commissioners
Prouty and Harlan.
In the proceeding attack was made
upon the charge of $3.50 per car made
by the defendant carriers for deliver
ing or receiving interstate carload
freight to or from industries located
upon spurs or sidetracks within their
switching limits, when such carload
freight was moving incidentally to a
line haul and the carrier receiving or
delivering such freight received the
whole or any part of the compensation
for such line haul. The complaint was
directed against two separate and dis
tinct practices involving, on the one
hand, the switching charge incident to
system line haul, and, on the other
the switching charge incident to a
foreign line haul.
The complainants contended that the
charge, when made incident to a sys-
tenn line haul, was Illegal inasmuch as
the service. for which the charge was
made was an ordinary and necessary
incident of carriage, that the COM
pensation for that service was and
must be included as a matter OF. law
in the freight rate, and that the seq
regation of the switching charge was
not permitted by law. The COM
plainants further alleged that the
charge constituted an unlawful dis
elimination under section of the act
to regulate commerce and that it was
excessive.
FOREIGN LINE CHARGE
/ AS to the charge when made Incl
dent to a foreign line haul, the COM
plainants urged that rs each defendant
received out of the through rate from
the connecting line a minimum com
pensation of $3.50 per car for the
service between the interchange
tracks and the industries. it was un-
reasonable and unlawful to exact an
additional sum from the shipper for
the same service.
In summing up the case Commits
sioner Lane says:
The basic theory of the COM
pla1nants' case is that these in
dustry spurs are part of the re-
ceivinS and delivering systems
of the carriers, which theory is
met by the defendants with the
proposition that these spurs are
essentially plant facilities con-
structed for the convenience of the
shipper rather than that of the
carrier. In a sense and within
proper limitations, both of these
contentious are sound.
The complaint and answer are ar
gued to considerable extent in the
decision 1t is admitted that the in
dustries benefit from such spur track
connections, and again admitted that
without such industry tracks the car
riers of the country at large would
be utterly lacking in adequate termi-
nal facilities without such connec-
tlons The opinion goes on to say:
For 40 years and more it has been
the policy of the railroads to. de-
Velop traffic and facilitate its move
ment by the construction of such
spur lines, and so extensive has be-
by rail that it is difficult to con-
ceive of any system which might
be devised for conducting the vast
volumes of our heavy traffic without
the spur track. In view of these
conditions it would be manifestIy
unfair to treat the industrial spur
as Henianea q plant 1 ,tafcility' q shippers con
to both the carrier and the ship
per under modern conditions of
business and transportation.
PORTIONS Or TERMINALS
We are fully convinced that the
eomplalndntS view of the nature of
these tracks is correct and that
they are portions of the terminal
facilities of the carrier with whose
lines they connect. and together
with the team tracks and other
Yards, form the terminal facilities
OF these carriers. The service here
under consideration is "A delivery
service and nothing more; the de-
livery being made at one of the
carriers tracks. which is removed
at a greater or less distance from
livery is a substitute service. IT
is a service over the carriers own
session of the property transported
and which involves no greater eX-
livery
If shipper desires delivery made
upon the Santa Fe tracks he can
ship by way of the Santa Fe with
out incurring the switching charge
OF $3.50 per car under the holding
in this case If, however, he pre-
fers to ship by way of the South
ern Pacific road and have delivery
made upon the Santa Fe industrial
track, the terminal charge imposed
by the Santa F'e must be regarded
as an additional charge for an ad-
ditional service. We do not find in
the record sufficient data upon
which to base finding as to the
reasonableness of the amount of
this charge of $3.50 for interline
switching to industry tracks, and
for the purposes of the present or
der will assume it to be reason
ab1e.
ILLEGAL CHARGE
An order will be entered con-
demning as Illegal and unjust the
charge of $3.50 per car made by the
defendant carriers for delivering or
receiving interstate carload freight
to or from industries located upon
spurs or side tracks within their
switching limits, when such carload
freight is moving incidentally to
a system line haul.
The case was originally instituted by
the Pacific Coast jobbers and manu-
facturers' association. which association
is now a part of the traffic bureau of
l. - -