Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-12-12

the Commission and the UTILITIES IN
fixing rates.
Section 10 requires the Utilities to
file rate schedules and indirectly fixes
the maximum charges. This section
says nothing about reduced rates. Sec
ton 80 makes it unlawful for the Utili-
ties to grant reduced rates in considera-
ton of certain facilities furnished by
the parties served, and is not applicable
to the question before us.
Section 80 fixes a penalty for receiv-
ing certain favors and is useful in this
discussion in that it throws light upon
the meaning of all of the provisions of
the Act. When it's terms are simplifed
and analysed, it amounts to this. One
shall not receive any service G) free,
or 90 at less rate than that named
in the schedules in force as provided
by the Act or CD whereby any service
or advantage is received other than that
specified in the Act. This service is
not free" We understand that it is
not given for compensation less than
when the Act took effect. The scope
of the third provision is not altogether
clear, but it may be measured by con-
provisions of the Act 1t probably was
intended to cover every possible device
/ whereby the provisions of section 81
might be nulliied
Section 81 forbids ANY undue or I'M
reasonable preference or advantage to
any particular person, firm or corpe-
ration or any undue or unreasonable
prejudice or disadvantage in any re-
! spect whatever" 1t does not define
| these terms, nor does it denounce dis
elimination unless it results in undue
or unreasonable advantage or disad-
vantage. These terms are to be read
together. That is an undue advantage
( to one which works a similar disad-
vantage to another other provisions
of the Act require adherence to future
schedules as they become operative,
but this section in connection with pres
ent conditions should be measured by
this test.
In this respect our law differs from
the Interstate Commerce Act, which
expressly declares that any arrange
ment whereby one person is charged
greater or less compensation for any
service than is charged any other per-
/
elimination Under that law the Inter
state Commerce Commission has ruled
that reduced rates to scholars, not APP
| plicable to all persons between the
same ages, is unlawful. That law pro-
hibits certain specified acts without re-
gard to their actual effect The Wis
consin Act contains substantially the
same provision found in our law modi-
fed by further restriction similar to
that in the Interstate Commerce Act.
With our law based largely on that of
Wisconsin it is significant that this
specific prohibition is omitted
Returning to section 81 of our Act.
practice may give undue or unreal
sonable' advantage or cause similar
disadvantage to the individual or to
the public, and in either case is un
lawful. With reference to the indi-
vidual 1t may give one an advantage
over another by transporting him or his
property more cheapfy than his neigh
Dor who is engaged in a competing
| business. If the same concessions are
made to all persons attending the same
| grades of schools in a given commu-
| nifty, one has no personal advantage
over another Tt may be within the
prohibition of this section If the rate
established is so low as not to be a
fair compensation for the service rem
dered, so that it shifts an additional
burden upon the public by requiring it
to pay rates in excess of what would
otherwise be necessary.
The carriage of school children oe-
ours at hours when the traffic other
wise usually is not at its maximum
1t probably entails little, and often no.
additional expense upon the carrier
This alone, however. would not be suf-
ficient to Justify it. because It is due
to the public to distribute the burden
among all who use the facilities. But
it is said and probably is true, that
this particular class of traffic Is much
larger under reduced rates, and will
average to return as great aggregate
results as when the higher rates are
exacted. These are facts which could
be ascertaihed accurately only on thor
ough investigation. For the present
each utility is in the best position to
determine for itself whether such traf-
fc under the reduced rates is in fact
| burden as above defined. If it is not
the practice does not seem to violate
the provisions of section 81
Is the practice in conflict with sec
ton rs, which forbids the collection of
greater or less compensation, except
as otherwise provided in section 80
than is specified in their printed sched-
ules, now being the schedules in force
when the Act took effect subject to the
limitations as to exceeding those of jan
uary 1, 1913? This same section fur
Their provides that the rates contained
in such schedules shall be lawful until
changed as provided in the Act. The
fact that these reduced charges are the
same which were in effect January /
1913, and when the present law became
! effective seems to answer this question.
Our conclusion then is that it is lawful
for common carriers of passengers to
make special reduced rates for school
children. to be used only in going to
and from school, applicable to all
school children alike within their re-
spective communities, provided such
rates are not lower than those named In
! its schedules or in force when this Act