The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-05-23
Federal and State Com
missions inf Reach
ing Clash.
OPENS QUESTION
OF A UTH ORIT Y
Case in Point Is Trivial, but
Unanimous Opinion Of Fed
eral Commission, Prepared
by Harlan, Is Of Country
/ Wide Application-Takes
Strong Position.

Washington. D. c., May 22-Regu-
lation of railroad freight rates ordi-
narily is a complicated question, in
volving intricate matters of law: nut
II becomes even more serious problem
when two regulating authorities clash
on proposition OF the reasonablencss
Of rates. Thoughtful observers OF
freight rate regulation have antici-
rated that sooner or later a conflict
or authority would arise between the
Interstate Commerce Commission and
one or more of the State Railroad Com
missions concerning the fixing OF rates.
Precisely such conflict has devei-
eped over comparatively insignih-
cant case that recently was brought
before the Interstate Commerce Com
mission II was that of e. r. Saun-
ders e. Company, of Pensacola, Fla.
against the southern Express Com
pany. The complainants are FISH deal
crs and shippers at Pensacola. In the
ordinary course of their business, they
operate largely in the state OF Ala
bama. shipping fsh in quantities rom
Pensacola to points of destination IN
that state by express.
Fixed Express Rate.
Recently the Railroad Commission
OF Alabama fixed an express rate on
FISH from Mobile. Ala, 10 other intra-
state noints that was far below the
eypress rate from Pensacola to the
same points of destination. This rate
the express company was forced 70
nut in effect. although 1T proteste"
against It, Mobile fish shippers, ny
reason of this rate. were given an ad-
vantage over the fish shippers oil Peisf
sacola to points within Aaoaha. "a
though, in many instances. the dls-
tance from Pensacola TO points Of des
tinstion was leas than from Moplie.
The southern Ehprcss Gprnnahs re.
,nsod IN make the same rates from
pensacola to points in Alabama as II
was reat,irea 10 make from Mobile. It's
rofusai res,ilting In a complaint hiea
against II with the Interstate COM
merce Commission
opinion Handed Down.
The commissions opinion IN the 20
,,,. b.ndea down to-day. IT was pre-
nsr.a nv commissioner Harlan, and Is
the unanimous Judgment OF the e"ni
mission. 1t indicates clearly the lthes
of conflict between the national co,t
mission and the various state eoi,i'i'i'
sions In tho regulation OF trcisft ~
express rates, and. In tha' sen,e'
owe Of the most important DECISIONS
h ,
,nonths While the case directly IN
yo,vad NAV be considered as inconse-
,ua,,ial. compare lively. the principle
enunciated bv the commission Is o'
countrv-wide application. as ~ opetis
al once the question whether the na
+,oral or the state regulating au.'io
~. IL to he paramount in the hSlhs
of freight rates.
The commission states !ts postum AZ
these terms: ;.,
.rrnon general principles of comit y
the action of state commissioH ~
hxinp rates on state trafhc must ne
treated with all due respect. put litis :
commission has never felt itself bound
to accept a S'ate-made rate as a.s
ess,rv measure of an interstate rate.
without criticizing the state Commis-
sion rates from Mobile. this commits
sion. in the light of the record and
tts own Investigations. finds ltselt un-
able to accept the Alabama rates as
fair and reasonable basis for fixing the
dofendant's. rates to the same poiSts
from Pensacola.
The situation and the testimony are
discussed thoroughly In the opinion
In announcing that 1t would not ciose
the record in the case until the .ii ueieliu
ant had made further efforts to contest
the order OF the Alabama commission
tbe Interstate Commerce Commissl on
says:
..The carriage of traffic by common
carrier for one community, or one sci
OF shippers, at less than 1t carries the
same traffic for a like distance and
under substantially similar transpor-
tation conditions, for another com
munity or ianother set of Shippers i
not only In contravention of funda-
t,,e,t tf<a hut q.
E sentially iniquitous. II such dis
crimination is practiced by common
carrier as between communities or dlf
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 witt
respect to interstate traffic, redress
may be, had under the act to regulate
commerce.
Unjust Situation.
"Rut when a carrier, as in this case
seryes two communities similarly sit
mated by hauling the same traffic. un'
der similar conditions, from poin
Of origin to destinations In the same
state. and also to the same destination:
from an Interstate point of origin,
is not altogether clear that existing
Legislation affords redress against
discrimination as between the tWt
points, when resulting from an orde1
by the State Commission. But unless
some such power Is lodged somewhere
under appropriate legislation, y is eV'
dent that State-made rates4-ll estab
lished In pursuance Of narrow o.
selfish local policy, may not only hin
der and harm and burden Interstate
traffic and interstate interests, but may
IL adjusted with that end in. view. taxi
from a point in another. State ~ bus
iness that naturally belongs to tina
point or In which tits entitled at leas
to participate, on the basis OF equat
rates and equal opportunity,
'sWhateyer may be the explanation
+ whether 1t rests in the greater zeal
activity and ability of the fishing IN