The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1910-05-23
COMMISSIONS
DO NOT agree
Interstate Commerce Commission
and Alabama State Com
mission Clash
IMPORTANT DECISION CIvEN
Question at Issue Involves Authority
of Interstate and State Commits
sions--Former Makes Its Po
sition Known.

Washington, May, 23.-Regulation of
railroad freight rates ordinarily is a
complicated question, involving intri-
cate matters of law; but 1t becomes
even more serious problem when
two regulating authorities clash on a
proposition of the reasonableness of
rates. Thoughtful observers of freight
rate regulation have anticipated that,
sooner or later, a conflict of authority
would arise between the Inter State
Commerce Commission and one or
more of the State Railroad Commits
sions concerning the fixing of rates.
Precisely such a conflict has devel
oped over a comparatively insignificant
case that recently wah brought before
the Inter- State Commerce Commission.
Il was that Of Il. Il. Saunders & Co,
of Pensacola, Fla, against the South
ern Express company. The complain
ants are fish dealers and shippers at
Pensacola. In the ordinary course Of
their business, they operate largely in
the state of Alabama, shipping fish in
of destination i'm that state by express.
Recently, the Railroad Commission
of Alabama fixed an express rate on
fish from Mobile, Ala, To other inter-
state 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 II protested against
it. Mobile fish shippers, by reason or
this rate, wore given an advantage
over the fish shippers of Pensacola to
points within Alabama. Although i'm
many instances, the distance from
Pensacola to points of destination was
less than from Mobile.
The, Southern Express Company re-
fused to make the anne rates from
Pensacola to points i'm Alabama as IL
was required to make from Mobile, it's
against it with the Interstate Com
merce Commission.
The Commissions opinion in the
case was handed down yesterday. 1t
was prepared by Commissioner Harlan
and is the una imous judgement of
the Commission. 1t indicates clearly
the lines of conflict between the Ma
tional Commission and the various
State Commissions, in the. regulation
Of freight and express rates; and, In
that sense is one of the most import
ant decisions rendered by the Com
mission for many months. While the
case directly involved may be consider
ed as inconsequential, comparatively
the principle enunciatod by the Com
mission is of country wide application
as it opens. at once, the question
whether the nation, or the state
regulating authority is to be para
mount in the fixing of freight rates.
The. commission states its position
i'm these tennis:
Upon general principles ~ CONT!
the action of state con ission II
fixing rates on state trait must b'
treated with all due resoect, but thu
Commission has never felt itself boun'
TO accept a state made rate as a nee
essary rate. without criticising tn
state commission rates from Mobile
This Commission,in the light of the re
cord and its own Investigations, find
Itself unable to accept the Alabami
rates as a fair and reasonable basis 70
fixing the defendants rates to the sam
points from Pensacola"
The situation and the testimony ar
di 'cussed thoroughly i'm the opinion. 1
announcing that 1t woulG not close tn
record in the case until the defcndan
had made further efforts to contest tn
order cf the Alabama commission, TN
Interstate Commerce Commissio
says:
The carriage of traffic by a com
mon carrier for one community OF on
set of shippers at less than it carrie
the same traffic for a like distance, an
under substantially similar transporta
ton conditions for another communit
or another set of shippers is not onl
In contravention of fundamental rigl
ard injustice but is essentially iniqui'
ous II such discrimination is pras
ticcd by a common carrier as betwee
communities or different sets of shir
pers, within the same state and Q
traffic moving only within the stat
redress, may usually be had under Il
state laws. on the other hand, II q
Interstate carrier Is guilty of such
discrimination with respect to inte
state traffic, redress may be had und
the act to regulate commerce.
But when a carrier. as I'm this cas-
serves two communities similarly ST
uated, by hauling the same traffic III
der similar conditions from a point
origin TO destinations in the san
state and also TO the same destinatio
rom an Interstate point OF origin,
Is not altogether clear that existi
legislation afords redress against
discrimination. as between the t'
points. when resulting from an ord
ny the state commission. But unle