The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-05-23
REGULATION OF RATES
QUESTION IN ISSUE
Two Regulating Authorities Differ
Over ReaSOndb|eneSS
Of Rates
lBy Associated pressl }

(By Associated press)
Washington, d. G., May % Rcgu-
lation OF abroad freight rates ordln-
arlly is complicated question, III
5olying intricate matters Of law; but
it becomes even a more serious prob
lem when two regulating authorities
clash on a proposition OF the reason
ableness of rates Thoughtful obser-
yers OF freight rate regulation have
anticipated that sooner or later, 4
conflict OF authority would arise be-
tween the Interstate Commerce com
mission and one or more of the state
railroad commissions concerning the
fixing OF ates.
Precisely such a conflict has deyel-
oped over a comparatively insigniti-
cant case that recently was brought
before the Interstate Commerce COM
sion. 1t was that Of +. 4. Saunders
& Co., of Pensacola Fla, against the
Southern Express company. The com
plalnants are fish dealers and ship
pers at Pensacola. In the ordinary
course of their business, they operate
largely inptlie state of Alabama, ship
ping fish in quantities from Pensacola
% points of destination in that state
oy express.
State Board Makes Rate.
Recently, the railroad commission
lf Alabama fixed an express rate on
sh from Mobile, Ala, to other intra-
state points that was far below the
express rate from Pensacola TO tho
same points of destination. This rate
he express company was forced to
put In effect although 1t protested
against it, Mobile fish shippers, by
easOn of this rate, were given an
advantage over the fish shippers Ot
'ensacOla to points within Alabama.
Although, in many instances, the dis
1ance from Pensacola to points OF
destination was less than from Mo
bile.
The Southern Express company re.
used to make The same rates from
Pensacola to points in Alabama as
was required to make from Mobile
Is refusal resulting in n complaint
lied against it with the Interstate
commerce. commission.
Va iiona Commission Clashes.
The commission opinion in the
,ase was handed down today 1t wac
} epared by Commissioner Haflau
md is the unanimous judgment of the
commission. II Indicates clearly the
ines Of conflict between the National
ommission and the various stale com
gisslons, in the regulation of the
reight and express rates; and, IN
hat sense, is one OF the most import
ut decisions rendered by the commits
ION for many months. While lhc
asc' directly involved may be con
ldered as nconseWentlai. compare
iNey the p inciple ennnciatcd by
he commission is of countrywide ap
llcation. as ii opens. at once, the
uestlon whether the National or the
tate, regulating authority is to be
aramouut in the fixing Of freight
rates.
The commission states its position
u hese terms
NTH Due Respect, But
Upon the general principles ol
omity the action of state commits
sion in fixing rates on state traffic
nust be treai ed with all due respect
'ut this commission has never felt
tself bound TO accept a state-amde
ate as necessary measure OF an
Interstate rate, Without criticisng
he state commission rates from Mo
lile. this commission in the light o
he record aid its own investigations
nds Itself unable to accept the Ala
laam rates as a final and reasonable
lasis for fixing the defendants rates
the same points from Pensacola
The situation and the testimony az
discussed thoroughly in the opinion
announcing tina, It would not close
he record in the case until the de
endant had made further efforts tS
ontest the order of the Alabama
ommIssion, the lntersia CommercC
commission says:
fundamental Right and Justice.
The carriage of traffic by com
non carrie for one community ol
me set of shippers at less than il
,arrles the same traffic Tor like
l.stance, and under substantially sim
lar transportation conditions. fer an
other community or another set o
shippe Is not only in contraventior
Of fundamental right and justice bul
Is essentially inquitous. If such I
discrimination is practiced by a com
mon carrier as between communities
or different set of Shippers. withp
the same state aud on traffic mowne
only within the .statefi redress, may
usually be had under the state laws
On the other hand, If an interstate {
carrier is guilty of such a discrimina-
tion with respect to interstate trafnc
redress may be had under the act To
regulate commerce.
Selfish Local Policy Harmful.
But when a local ca rer. as In this
case. serves two communities simil.
arly situated, by hauling the same
traffic under similar conditions from
a point of origin to destinations in
the same state and also TO the same