Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-06-13
DECISION.

In a report by Commissioned Frank
lin *. Lane, recently made public, the
interstate commission has
handed down its decision In the So
called San Francisco and Los Angeles
''gwitching cases" involving the right
Of o carrier to make an additional
charge for delivering and receiving
carload freight to ana from industries
located upon industrial spurs or side
Trucks when Il receives the main line
haul.
For some years past II has been the
practice OF the railroads entering Los
Angeles and san Francisco to exact
$3.50 per car in addition TO the reg
uiar freight charge for this spur track
delivery. The commission holds that
the charge Is In conflict with the pro-
vieions Of the act TO regulate COM
nicrcc. aud orders thai 1t be discon-
tinued. II Is the view OF the commits
sion that the spurs and sidctracks
serving Individual industries consti-
tutcs "A part OF the railroads terminal
facilities, and that delivery Of carload
freight upon such spur tracks Is mere
Is "A substitute for public team track
delivery and cannot ne made the basis
Tor an additional charge.
The railroads which were parties
defendant IN the cases before the COM
mission contcnded that delivery upon
an Industrial siding is an additional
service in the nature of Carriage by
Iaii"-a service for which the carrier
rs not compensated b. tho freight rate,
and for which, therefore, a separate
charge may DO imposed. Tho COM
mission holds that while "A delivering
carrier may furnish carriage as an ac-
cessorial service and may charge
therefore as a distinct and separate
terminal service, such carriage must
follow ana be supplemented TO the
delivery which the carrier makes UNI
der its published rates, The service.
given on a spur track IS a delivery ser
vice and nothing more, the delivery
being made at one Of the carriers
tracks which Is removed at a greater.
or less distance from It's public yards
spur track delivery. in such cases Is
designated AS a substitute service. 1t
relieves the carriers team. tracks and
shods. ne~ccssnating less outlay Tor
expensive yards in O. crowded city,
promotes the speedy release OF equip
ment. and vastly aids In conducting a
commerce which Is greater than the
oarrler's own facilities could freely,
adequately and economically handle
The report says
An additional charge may BE- made
when an additional service is sivcn,
tuf the service here given Is not addi-
tional 10 that for which the rate PAYS
II the shipper pays FOR team track
delivery and does net receive u, but
asks instead, and is given. a sidctrack
delivery which costs The carrier no
more. lac mas not be compelled 10
fay an additional charge upon the
assumption that he has received a ter
miral team track service which has
moi been given. A carrier may not go
construct it's rates as TO compel as
extra charge Tor like service. and this
IN our Judgment the defendants at
Los Angeles have dome
u Is 10 be noted that The commits
sion Condemns The switching charge
only when made by the carrier ~rcceiv-
ine the line haul The right 10 inn
pose the charge In the case Of freight
moving over q so-called foreign line
and rendered rs the latter for deiiyery
10 industries reached By the rails Of