The Washington times., 1914-11-25
THE COMMUTERS CASE.

| anu lTCH1 Eastern Clues Ill WHOSS
suburbs they reside are organizing
a determined fight against the ad
vance in communication railroad fares
The railroads, advised by the Inter
state Commerce Commission to lool
to their passenger traffic as source
of possible increases in revenue, have
advanced their mileage-book rates
and now it develops that the com.
mutation rates are also to go up.
The protest against increase OF
commuters rates will open a most
interesting series of questions. Fol
many years certain rates have been
in effect; for example, between
Washington and its suburban sta
tions on the Baltimore and Ohio and
the Pennsylvania lines. On the
faith of these long-maintained rates
many people have bought and i'm
proved property in the suburban viii
lagos. The value of the property to
considerable degree depends on the
transportation rate that must be
paid. 1t is apparent that if trans
portation facilities were withdrawn
entirely, the value would be de-
stroyed. An increase of rates is, in
effect, a partial destruction of these
values. An excessive increase might
eb well-nigh as complete a destruc-
tion Of the values as the entire with
drawal of service.
If a carriers rates are reduced by
order of a railroad commission, the
carrier goes into court, alleges that
the reduction is, in effect, taking its
property without due process of law,
and if a successful showing is made
that the new rate is uncompensatory,
the reduction will be enjoined. The
public may not confiscate carriers
property by prescription of unduly
low rates.
Now, that argument in favor Of
the carrier must have a converse, in
favor of the patron. If set Of
rates, voluntarily established by a
railroad and voluntarily maintained
by it for long period, have induced
many people to buy property on the
faith of those rates and that service,
then it is quite apparent that very
large increase of the rates would af-
feet the home-owners' property in
the same way that, in the former
instance, a reduction of the railroads
rates would affect the railroad. If it
is coniscation to compel a railroad
to take an unduly low rate, is it not
confiscation to compel the suburban
property owner to pay an unduly
high rate?
The question arises, of course, as
to whether a given set of rates is
too high. Certainly there is some
presumption in favor of a set of
rates established by the railroads
themselves, and by them voluntarily
maintained for many years. Wheth-
er any right to have that schedule
continued can at last vest in the
property owner is at least an inter-
esting question. The Interstate
Commerce Commission, in the
Friendship Heights case, seems to
have squinted strongly toward that
view.
There is another aspect of this
increase of communication rates that
is entitled to attention. 1t places an
unduly large share of the burden of
increasing railroad revenues on a
very small class of the public. The
commuter cannot "pass it along" to
somebody else, as an increased
freight rate is passed along. The
business man who pays more, for his
goods in increased freights raises
the selling price enough to get the
money back; the consumer pays the
freight. "The consumer" being the
whole public, the increased burden of
higher rates is pretty equitably dis
tributed over the whole community.
Much the same is true of raising
the price of mileage. Mileage is
largely consumed by the commercial
interests; it is part Of their selling
expense. Their travelling men use it,
and, if it costs quarter-cent more,
the selling price of goods will have
to absorb that additional cost of
doing business. This increase, in
short, can for a large part be
"passed along" to the ultimate con-
sumer. 1t may not be pleasant to
the consumer, who is getting a good
many things passed to him nova
days, but at least it makes the most
equitable sort of distribution of the
additional burden.
But the case of the commuter is
different He is a little class by
himself. He cannot pass it along.