The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-02-25

! contention would be contrary TO the
| fundamental purposes OF the police pow
| or. And viewing the situation from the
! standpoint OF the public, II can have
no interest which ought to compel q car
! ricr 10 furnish certain classes OF service
a less Than cost thus TO charge the loss
! against the balance OF the service Such
| n principle Is contrary TO public policy.
ANY discrimination bysa public scvv-
! ice company. which consists in rendering
service below its cost. is unjust dis
ceivablc that test OF reasonable rates
VIII bc adopted by the court which would
compel carriers To do the very thing for
| bidden by law. Any Just rule, therefore
OF rate regulation must preserve TO the
carrier both tho right and the ability
| 10 render all service at rcmuneratiVc
rates.
"If the regulation compcls carrier
TO render portion of it's service at less
than cost. said the counsc! in closing.
inevitably this loss must be distributed
over the balance Of its business unless
the carrier can refuse to render the ScrV-
ice. The latter alternative is Impossible
All service rendered at Il loss results in
burdening the balance Of the carriers
service; and considering that railways are
subject 10 regula tiOnS OF many states, as
well rs to chat of congress- the necessary
result ot one state requiring n service
TO hc rendered at less than cost Is to
impose the loss on citizens OF other states
and on the business OF the country at
large
The above dispatch presents one Of the
most unique situations that has APP
pcarcd in tie railroad world fOr some
time. Ii the arguments of the railroads
and the traffic bureau OF this city before
the interstate commerce commission last
year are recalled, il will be noted that
in North Dakota the railroad uses the
argument that the shipper uses In Utah.
and that the state otherwise the shipper,
In North Dakota uses the very argument
that the railroads use in Utah.
In Utah the railroads argne Tor JOINT
cost. couteuding that some rates must be
unusually low, possibly below the aver
age cost, and. that what the road~loscs
on one kind Of traffic 1T has a right TO
make up hy charging moro on another
kind OF traffic. with the idea OF keeping
everybody in business and The trainc
moving. In North Dakota this Is the
very position tho railroad is fighting.
On the other hand, In Utah the shippers
claim that each rate must stand on its
own feet and that the roads have no
freight so that they can carry other kinds
OF freight at q rate so low that II does
not pay its average profit,
In other words. in this state the rail-
roads say they must charge Gust use i'll
Illustrative fgureS) 50 per 100 pounds 70
Utah from Chicago and only 81 per 100
pounds through Utah 10 California from
Chicago. because the 81 Chicago Cali
fornia rate is too low TO make the road
profitable If applied to all points alike
or even in like propSuon. In North IOa-
kota however. this is the very argument
the shippers are using, and the railroad
is making the very argument used By the
shippers in this state.
Whichever way the supreme court de-
cides The case, these positions being taken
as they are, cannot help but have vital
influence on the railroad question in this
and other states That The case Is about
coal is a mere incident. The fundamental
principle involved must apply TO all
classes of freight and probably to pas
| ScnScr traffic, alike.