The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-05-23
With the State r. r. Commits
sion of Alabama.
MANIPULATION
Pensacola Has Lost Its Fish
Trade to Mobile.
Dealers File Complaint Against
State Made Rates.


even a more serious problem when two
regulating authorities clash on a pro-
position of the reasonableness of rates.
Thoughtful observers of freight rate
regulation have anticipated that, soon
er or later, a conflict of authority would
arise between the interstate commerce
commission and one or more of the
state railroad commissions concerning
the fixing of rates.
Precisely such a conflict has develop
ed over comparatively insignificant
case that recently was brought before
the int erstate commerce. commission
1t was that of E. E. Saunders & CO.
of Pensacola, Fla, against the South
ern Express company. The compliments
are fish dealers and shippers at Pensa-
cola. IN the ordinary course of their
business, they operate largely in the
state of Alabama shipping fish in guam
titles from Pensacola to points of des-
tinatiOn IL that state by express.
Recently, the railroad commission of
Alabama fixed an express rate on fish
rom Mobile, Ala, to other intraState
points that was far below the express
rate from Pensacola to- the same points
of destination. This rate the express
company was forced to put in effect,
although it protested against it. Mo-
bile FISH shippers, by reason of this rate,
were given an advantage over the fish
shippers of Pensacola to points within
Alabama, although, in many instances,
of destination was less than from Mo-
bile.
Refused Same Rates.
The Southern Express company re-
fused to make the same rates from
Pensacola to points in Alabama as it
was required to make from Mobile its
refusal resulting in a complaint filed
against it with the interstate commerce
commission
The commissions opinion in the case
tndn II
pared by Commissioner Harlan and IS
the unanimous judgment of the COM
mission. 1t indicates clearly the lines
OF conflict between the national com
mission and the various state commits
slons, in the regulation of freight and
express rates; and, in that sense is
enc of the most important decisions
rendered by the commission for many
months. While the case directly in
VOWED may be considered as inconse-
quential, comparatively, the principle
enunciaJed by the commission is of
countrywide application as IL onens
at once, the question whether the ma
tionah or the state, regulating authori-
~ is to be paramount in the fixing OF
freight rates.
The commission states its position in
these terms
Upon general principles of comfy
the ACTON OF state commission in
fXlng rates on state traffic must he
treated with all due respect but this
10 accept a state-made rate as nee
essary measure of an interstate rate
Without criticising the state commits
sion rates from Mobile this commits
sion, in the light of the record and it's
own Investigations, finds itself unable
to accept the Alabama rates as a fair
and reasonable basis for fixing the de-
PENDANTS rates to the same points
from Pensacola"
The Opinion.
The situation and the testimony are
discussed thoroughly in the opinion.
In announcing that it would not close
the record in the case until the defen-
dant mad made further efforts to con-
test the order of the Alabama COM
mission, the Interstate Commerce
commission says:
1.-THE carriage of traffic by com
mon carrier for one community or one
set of shippers at less than it carries
the same traffic for a like distance
and under substantially similar trans
portation conditions, for another com
munity or another set of shippers is
not only in contravention of funda-
mental right and justice but is essen
TALLY Ubiquitous. If such discrim-
1nation is practiced by a common car
rier as between communities or diff
ferent sets of shippers, within the
same state and on traffic moving only
within the state, redress, may usually
be had under the state laws. On the
other hand, if an interstate carrier is
guilty of such a discrimination with
respect to interstate traffic, redress
may be had under the act to regulate
commerce.
But when a carrier. as in this
case, serves two communities similar
~ situated, by hauling the same traf-
fic under similar conditions from a
point of origin to destinations in the
same state and also to the same des-
tinations from an interstate point of
origin, 1t is not altogether clear that
existing legislation affords redress
a 6iS0rin1 n hot
the two points. when resulting from
an order by the state commission. But
unless some such power is lodged
somewhere under appropriate legisla-
rates. if established in pursuance of
narrow or selfish local policy, may not
only hinder and harm and burden in
terstate traffic and interstate interests.
but may. if adjusted with that end
in view, take from a point in another
state a business that naturally belongs
to that point or in which it is entitled
at least to participate. on the basis of
equal rates and equal opportunity.
Facts in the Case.
''Whateevr may be the explanation,
whether it rests in the greater zeal, ac-
tivity and ability of the fishing inter
ests at Pensacola or whether it is
natural advantage belonging to that
port, the fact appears that for years
Pensacola has enjoyed larger bust
ness in the distribution of fish
throughout the state of Alabama than
has Mobile. By readjustment of the
state rates out of Mobile whether so
intended or not, the process of taking
from Pensacola, through lower state
made transportation charges what its
superior zeal or it's greater natural adj
vantages have given to if has COM
menced and is now going on
'sOn principle it is clear that a car
rier operating through two or more
states is but one vehicle of commerce,
and all traffic moved by X, whether
state or interstate ought, when the