Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-06-02
Railways, However, Forbidden
to Discriminate Against
Washington Shippers.
STORE-DOOR DELIVERIES
INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE
Opinion of the Interstate Commerce
Commission Affecting Local and
Baltimore Merchants.

| freight rates from New England and east
ern territory which carried store-door
| delivery or even getting the store-door
| delivery privilege restored was blasted
| today in opinions handed down in the
| Washington rate case. The commission,
| however. denied the railroads the right
| to continue lower rates to Richmond than
| to washington on several classes OF
| freight from New York and other eastern
points. and declared the class rates from
Washington to the Carolinas and other
southea stern territories to be unlawful to
1 the extent that they exceed the aggre-
| gates OF the intermediate rates. This
part of the proceedings is held open,
pending readjustment. tariffs for which
already have been filed by the Southern
| railway and allied lines, becoming ef-
| fective June 10.
| A third opinion. involving the store
| door delivery principle from Baltimores
standpoint, also was handed down. This
| also denied reduction on the store
| door delivery classes of freight.
| The case of Judd & Detweiler, incor-
porated. against the Baltiomre and Ohio
| railroad took up the question of a re-
| duction of rates only on the classes
| which formerly carried the store-door
| delivery. The other case was joint
! one, the Chamber of Commerce of WASH
| ington. D. c.. and others against the
| Baltimore and Ohio railroad. and o. ].
De Moll & Co. and others. attacking
| Southern railway and other attacking
both store-door delivery and rates to the
south.
Opinion of the Commission.
Seeking to attack the argument of the
| complainants in the Chamber of Com
he
''Complainants insist that as the diff
ferences between the rates for the first
three and the last three classes to
Washington are greater than between the
same classes to Richmond. there must
have beeen provision in the rates for
the first three classes to Washington
to cover the cost of store-door delivery
there.
They seem to lose sight of the fact
that tn service at Washington EN-
braced the first four classes and not
the first three only. II there is any
thing in the contention it should hold
as well with respect to the rates for
classes 1t is observed that as to the
first three classes the rates are the
same to both Washington and Rich
mond, except the difference of per
York. We do not think the compari-
sons have any real tendency to prove
what is claimed for them.
"By further comparisons complain
ants show that the class rates from
many eastern and New England points
are lower to Washington than to Rich
mond, and on freight from these points
| they say store-door delivery never ap-
Piled But even if the latter were con-
ceded, the situation would not prove
as to the rates in question that those
for the first three classes to Washing
ton are made higher than they would
have been but for store-door delivery.
The distance by rail is 116 miles less
to Washington than to Richmond. and
it is not unnatural that the all-rall
rates from many points should be low
er to Washington than to Richmond.
Rates from points IN New England
taking Bath Sherbrooke and Bruins
WICK as bases, are among those referred
to in this connection
Tariffs on File Quoted.
"It was expressly stated on beaalf of
complainants that these rates are prop
erly adjusted on all six classes. and yet
the tariffs on file with this commission
show that store-door delivery at Wash
ington applied to the first four classes of
freight from each and all of said points.
There is no claim that the cost of the
delivery service was included In these
| rates either for the first three classes or
| for the first four. On the contrary, the
/, argument Is based on the theory that
the service did not apply to freight from
| any of said points. In this the COM
plainants are mistaken.
The opinion says the evi's -"
| that the rates to Richmond a. ii
| nv water competition, but the : is
| true of the rates to Washingte'.. and
we do not think the record furnishes
| iustifcation for lower rail rates to Rich
| mond than to Washington on account
| of such competition. The commission
says that reparatlon cannot DC aio"eo
| on past shipments.
| Speaking of the new and lower tar
| ifs filed by the Southern railway and
allied lines. the commission says that
| from cursory examination OF th1s
tariff 1t appears that In many instances
! the through rates from washington to
points in the south will be consider
| ably lower than the aggregates OF the
| i,t ern,ediate rates based on AleXan-
dria n also appears that this new ad
| iustment when it becomes effective,
will remove the DISCRIMINATION as to
lower combination rates from eastern
| nojnts to the south via Baltimore
F., than via Washington. 1t will likewise
very materially relieve the situation
| complained of in this respect as COM
pared with Richmond. The combina-
mond will still be somewhat lower
| than like combinations based on Wash
| ington: but, upon the record now be-
fore us we do not find that the diff
ference In favor of Richmond will be
djsproportiopate
No order was issued regarding the
! southern rates. but the proceedings
will he held open to enable shippers
| 10 ascertain whether relief is afforded
! in compliance with the law
| Reference to Former Decision.
| No attempt is made to reconcile the
store-door delivery opinions as just
handed down with the original opinion,
written by the late Commissioner Mar
HE. in which the latter declared that
to withdraw a part of a service was
! tantamount to an increase in the rate
The present opinion. while agreeing
with that ruling. does not order the re-
| duction In the rates which carried the
store-door delivery practice The
| opinion written by Commissioner
Daniels. in the Baltimore proceeding,
about this point says:
| The chief ground of the present COM
plant as to the rates for the first three
classes is based on the elimination Of
store-door delivery. 1t is alleged that
the withdrawal amounted substantially
to an increase in the rates. and that
the burden is upon respondents to JUS
| tify such increase The rates In the
| 1Continued an Second Pa nal