Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-05-25
CLASH OF AUTHORITY
COMMERCE BOARD
WANTS FEDERAL LAW ON {.
REGULATION.

railroad freight rates ordinarily Is q
complicated question, involving tntri-
cate matters Of law; but it becomes !
even a more serious problem when
two regulating authorities clash on q
proposition Of the reasonableness Of
rates. Thoughtful observers Of freight
rate regulation have anticipated that,
sooner or later, conflict Of authority
would arise between the interstate
commerce commission and one Or more
of the state railroad comm issions con-
corning the fixing Of rates.
Precisely such a conflict has develop.
ed over a compare lively Insignificant
case that recently was brought be-
fore the interstate commerce commits
sion. 1t was that of e. =. Saunders
& Co.. of Pensacola, Fla. against
the Southern Express Company. The
compliments are frs dealers and ship
pers at Pensacola. In the ordinary
course of their business, they operate
largely in the state OF Alabama, ship
ping fish in quantities from Pensacola
to points Of destination in that state
by express.
Recently, the railroad commission OF
Alabama fixed an express rate on fish
from Mobile, Ala, to other intre- 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,
altho it protested against It, Mobile
fish shippers, by reason of this rate
were given an advantage over the fish
shippers of Pensacola to points within
Alabama, altho, in many instances, the
distance from Pensacola to points OF
destination was less than from Mobile.
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.
it's refusal resulting In complaint
filed against it with the interstate COM
merce commission.
Opinion is Important.
The commissions opinion in the case
was handed down today. 1t was pre-
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 commfs-
sions, in the regulation Of freight and
express rates; and. in that sense. is
one Of the most important decisions
months. While the case directly in
volved may be considered as inconse-
quential, comparatively, the princi>
pie enl1nciated by the commission is OF
country-wide application, as It opens,
at once, the question whether the mas
tional, or the state, regulating author
| ity is to be paramount in the fixing OF
| freight rates.
interstate Rates Rule.
The commission states its position in
these terms:
Upon general principles Of comfy
the action Of a state commission in fix-
| ing rates 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 nec-
essary meas sure Of the interstate rates
without criticising the stake conn1is-
sion rates from Mobile, this commis-
sion. in the light Of the record and its
own Investigations, finds itself unable
to accept the Alabama rates as q fair
| and reasonable basis for fixing the de-
PENDANTS rates to the same points from
Pensacola"
The situation and the testimony ara
discussed thoroughly in the opinion.
In announcing that it would not Gloss
the record IN uH0 CdsSe uIltI lA0 W.
PENDANT had made further efforts to
contest the order Of the Alabama cons
mission, the interstate commerce com-
mission says:
Discrimination Shown.
| when carrier, as In this casa
serves two communities similarly site
uated, by hauling the same traffic un-
der similar conditions from q point OF
origin to destinations in the same stats
and also to the same destinations from
an Interstate point Of origin, dt 10 not
altogether clear that existing legfsla~
ton affords redress against a dtscrimi-
nation, as between the two points,
when resulting from an order by the
state commission. But unless soma
such power is lodged somewhere under
appropriate legislation, 1t is evident
that state-made rates, IL established in
pursuance Of a narrow or selfish local
policy, may not only hinder and harmA
and burden interstate traSfic and in
terstate interests, but may, IL adjusted
with that end in view, take from a
point in a1other 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"