The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1910-05-23
refusal resulting in complaint filed
against 1t with the interstate COM

06oiAoI IL Will LuO lulCl6LdLS COu1.
merce commission.
The commissions opinion in the
case was handed down today. was
prepared by Commissioner Harlan
and is the unanimous Judgment of the
commission. 1t indicates clearly the
lines Of conflict between the national
commission and the various state COM
missions, 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 in
volved may be considered as inconse-
quential. comparatively, the principle
enunciated by the commission is Of
countrywide application, as it opens,
at once, the question whether the ma
tional, or the state, regulating author
ity is to be paramount in the fixing
Of freight rates.
The commission states its position
in these terms:
Upon general principles of comfy
the action of state commission in
fixing rates on state traffic must be
treated with all due respect, but this
commission has never felt itself
bound to accept state-made rate as
a necessary measure of an interstate
rate. Without criticising the state
commission rates from Mobile, this
commission. in the light of the record
and its own Investigations, finds it.
self unable to accept the. Alabama
rates as fair and reasonable basis
for fixing the defendants rates to the
same points from Pensacola"
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 de-
fendant had made further efforts to
contest the order of the Alabama COM
mission, the interstate commerce COM
mission says:
mon carrier for one community or one
set Of shippers at less than it carries
the same traffic for 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 iniquitous. If such a discrim-
ination is practiced by 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 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 similarly sit
uated. by hauling the same traffic un-
der similar conditions from a point
of origin to destinations in the same
state and also to the same destinations
from an interstate point of origin, it
is not altogether clear that existing
legislation affordS redress against a
discrimination, az between the two
points, when resulting from an order
by the state commission. But unless
some such power is lodged somewhere
under appropriate legislation, it is evil
dent that state-made rates. If estab-
tablished in pursuance of narrow or
selfish local policy, may not only him
der and harm. but may, If adjusted
with that end in view, take from a
point in another state business that
naturally belongs to that point or In
which it is entitled at least to par
ticipate, on the basis of equal rates
and equal opportunity.
Whatever may be the explanation,
whether it rests in the greater zeal,
activity, and ability of the fishing in
terests at Pensacola or whether it is
natural advantage belonging to that
port. the fact appears that for years
Pensacola has enjoyed larger busi-
ness in the distribution of fish
through lower state-made transporta-
ton charges, what its superior zeal or
its greater advantages have given to
it has commenced and is not going
on.
ION the principle it is clear that a
carrier operating through two or more
states is but one vehicle Of commerce,
and all traffic moved by 1t. whether
state or interstate, ought, when the
general transportation conditions are
the same, to bear its just proportion
of the cost of operation and ought to
yield no more and no less than its
just proportion of the revenues Of
the carrier.
ANY other theory is fundamentally
inequitable, illogical, and unreasona-
BILE. 1t may be, but on that point we
express no opinion. that the congress
may constitutionally protect interstate
commerce. as we'll as the carriers
that are engaged in interstate trans
portation. by requiring that any state
traffic moved by such carrier shall
bear it's just proportion of the cost
of operation and yield its proper pro-
portion of profit to the carrier; and
that with such a mend in view it may
authorize this commission to fix min
imum rates at least, for state traffic
when moved by carriers engaged also
in interstate transportation: or that
it may provide that no carrier engaged
in the interstate transportation of
passengers or property may at the
same time carry state traffic at rates
that are less than the rates exacted
by it for interstate carriage of like
distance and under like transportation
hos h0uyox,or mt Of