The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1914-06-24
SUPREME COURT UPH0LDS
LONG AND SHORT HAUL RULE
Decision Handed Down Yesterday in the Inter
mountain Rate Case Which Effects the
Shipment of Goods Across Continent

and snort maui clause, Cnle1 justice
White said:
1T is certain that the fundamental
change which it makes is the omis-
sion of the substantially similar cir
cumstances and conditions clause
thereby leaving the long and short
haul clauses in a sense unqualified
except in so far as the section gives
the right to/the carrier to apply to
the commission for authority Ito
charge less for longer than for short
er distances for the transportation of
persons or property" and gives the
commission the authority from time
to time ito prescribe the extent to
which such designated common car
riers may be relieved from the opera
ton of this section"
From the failure to insert a word
in the addition tending to exclude the
operation of competition and adequate
under proper circumstances to justify
the awarding of relief from the long
| ing nothing which minimizes or
changes the application of the prefer
ence and discrimination clauses of the
that in substance the amendment in
trinsically states no ne wrule or prin-
ciple, but simply shifts the powers
conferred by the section as it original
ly stood; that is, it takes from the car
riers the discretionary power lodged
in them and vests it in the commission
as primary instead of a reviewing
function,
Mountain Rate Case.
The orders were the outcome of a
change in the law in 1910. From 1887
to 1910, the law against a greater
charge for short than for a longer
haul applied only to hauls under "si-
milar conditions" but that proved un-
satisfactory and led to the law being
amended by striking out this pharse
similar conditions" and leaving the
commission with discretion to make
exceptions to the general rule laid
down in the law.
Shortly after the passage Of the act
in 1910, practically all the railroads
traversing the intermountain region of
the west applied to the commission to
have exceptions made so that high
er rate could be charged on shipments
from the east to intermountain cities,
such as Snokane, Wash, Reno. New,
and Phoenix, Ariz. The rates to these
cities from points east of the Rockies
had for years been made by adding
the through rate to the Pacific coast
and the local rate from the Pacific
back to the interior city.
The intermountain points rebelled
against what they claimed was mo-
nopoly given to the Pacific coast
cities, Of the trade at all points from
the coast back to the very doors of
the intermountain cities. The matter
was fought out in hearings before the
commission.
... Compromise Made.
The decision of the commission was
a compromise. 1t refused to let the
railroads charge higher rate to the
protesting cities, than was charged
originating beyond them, on shipments
originating west of line that would
run north and south through st. Paul,
Mimi, on shipments originating be-
tween st. Paul and Chicago, the rail-
roads were permitted to charge an in
crease Of not more than per cent;
on shipments originating between Chi
cago and Pittsburgh, not more than
Is per cent; and from the zone be-
tween Pittsburgh and the Atlantic not
more than rs per cent.
The commerce court set aside the
orders on the ground that the commits
sion had no authority to issue blank
et"orders, or zone" orders, but could
act only in regard to the reasonable
ness or unreasonableness of specific
rates. An attempt was made to have
the commerce court hold unconstitu-
tlonai the section Of the law under
which the orders were issued, on the
ground that congress had given no
guide to the commissions discretion
and therefore the legislation was a
delegation Of legislative power.
The majority of the commerce court,
however, found guide to this discre-
ton, in the preceding section of the
law, which declared rates must be
reasonable and on-discriminatory
JudgeArchbald expressed a belief that
the law was unconstitutional
The ground upon which the rail-
roads asked for the exemption under
the "long and short haul" clause was
that water competition required the
railroads to carry commodities to the
coats at an unreasonably low rate,
and that the rates proposed for the
intermountain cities were reasonable
in themselves for the service perform
, ed. Inasmuch as middle western
cities, would not be able to compete
with New York and Atlantic cities if
, New York alone enjoyed the low rates,
the railroads claimed a right by vir-
ture of market competition" to allow
middle western cities to enjoy the
same rates as New York.