New-York tribune., 1910-05-23
CONFLICT OVER RATES
Commerce Board and Alabama
Railroad Commission Clash.
STATE SHIPPERS FAVORED
Case Opens Question as to Which
Regulating Authority Is
Paramount.

Washington, May 22.-Regulation of rail-
road freight rates ordinarily is compH
Gated question involving intricate matters
of law, but IL becomes even a more serious
problem when two regulating authorities
clash on a proposition of the reasonable
ness of rates. A conflict has developed
over comparatively insignificant case
which recently was brought before the
Interstate Commerce Commission. It was
that of E. E. Saunders & Co. of Pensacola.
against the Southern Express Company.
The complainants are fish dealers and ship
pers at Pensacola. In the ordinary course
of their business they, operate largely in
the State of Alabama, shipping fish in
quantities from Pensacola TO points of des-
tination in that state by express.
Recently the Railroad Commission of
Ala bama fixed an express rate on fish from
Mobile 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 Mobile fish shippers. by reason
of this rate, had an advantage over the
fish shippers of Pensacola to points within
Alabama, although in many instances the
distance from Pensacola to points of destt-
nation was less than from Mobile.
The Southern Express Company refused
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 flied against il with the Inter-
state Commerce Commission.
The commissions opinion in the case was
handed down to-day. It was prepared by
Commissioner Harlan, and is the unani-
nous judgment of the commission. 1t in
dicates clearly the lines of conflict between
the national commission and the various
state commissions in the regulation of
freight and express rates, and in that sense
is one of the most important decisions
rendered by the commission for many
months. While the case directly involved
may be considered as inconsequential COM
parativeIy, the principle enunciated by the
commission is of countrywide application,
as it opens at once the question whether the
national or the state regulating authority
is to be paramount in the fixing of freight
rates.
The Commissions Position.
The commission states its position in
these terms:
Upon general principles OF comfy the
on state traffic must be treated with all
due respect, but this commission has never
felt itself bound to accept a state-made rate
as a necessary measure of an interstate
rate. Without criticising the state. COM
mission rates from Mobile, this commits
sion, III the light of the record and its own
Investigations, finds itself unable to accept
the Alabama rates as fair and reason
able basis for fixing the defendants rates
to the same points from Pensacola.
The situation and the testimony are dis
cCssed thoroughly in the opinion. In an
nouncing that 1t would not close the record
in the case until the defendant had made
further efforts to contest the order of the
Alabama commission, the Interstate Com
merce Commission says:
The carriage of traffic by a common car
rier for one community or one set of ship
perS at less than ii carries the same traffic
for a like distance, and under substantially
similar transportation conditions, for an
other community or another set Of shippers
is not only in contrsventfon of Fundamental
right and justice, but is essentially iniqul-
tous If such d discrimination is practised
by common carrier as between communi-
ties different sets of shippers within the
same state and on traffic moving only with
in 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.