Evening star., 1915-04-06
RATES DECISION
CUTS BOTH WAYS
CONTINUED from F,rst Pase.)

tlement upon its lines, building materials
were carried at reduced prices, fares Of
the workmen employed upon houses were
put at a low figure, passes were issued
to influential members Of village COM
munities in expectation that they would
induce others to settle along the line Of
the respondent; other special privileges,
such as the free carriage OF marketing,
were accorded. The present Communication
fares have been maintained for a long
period.
Question Of "Reasonable Rate"
These circumstances, Of course, are
not determinative of what is now a
reasonable fare; passes have in general
long since become Illegal. as have also
undue preferences. and the principle Of
estoppel we do not understand to be
part Of the law as to reasonable fares.
1t was held by the Supreme Court that
the Interstate commerce commission
cannot substitute for just and rea-
sonable rate a lower rate on the ground
that the railroad was by its former
sonable rate
Comparison Of the Baltimore and
Ohio communication fares in and out of
Washington with fares in and out of
New York. according to the opinion.
shows that in but one instance the
Ohio under the present sixty-trip tick
ct are higher than those Of the Cen
trail Railroad Of New Jersey, markedly
SO. for tho greater distances: that they
ton fares Of the Pennsylvania into
New York fferry stations or Hudson
terminaD; that when measured by the
communication fares Of the Southern rail-
way into Washington they appear for
comparable distances higher In each
;ro 10 ct 10 ma ho
to our purpose of valid comparison.
for it is made with a carrier operating
in the same general locality and whose
conditions OF operations. we may as
sumo, approach those Of the respondent.
Financial Phase Discussed.
1.-THE financial result Of tho action of
the Baltimore and Ohio in seeking to
advance fares was admitted by Its chief
witness to be problematical. There was
an estimate Of the expected increase IN
earnings from Communication traffic, but
this was predicated upon a continuance
of the present volume Of the commu-
tation traffic under the proposed fares.
The protestants asserted tnat n. many ny
who are now commuters would not pc
able to continue to use the railroad
were the new fares to go into erect.
that the electric roads. where acces-
Sible, would inevitably get mucn OF tne
committing business; that there would
to certainty be removals OF COM
muters to points nearer their places
oc occupation. It is not improb-
able, considering the large proposed
advance in the price of the daily jour
ney to those who now use the 18O-trlp
tickets. that the railroad would lose
considerable number of its present
committing patrons. This loss of trai-
fic would, of course, reduce the estl-
mate of increased revenue from the
sale of proposed Communication tickets
used by daily travellers. The funda-
mental matter for determination Is
what is a reasonable price for the
commuter to pay who travels every
day; whether the ticket upon which he
travels be for one month or three
months neither alters the value OF the
service to the commuter nor the cost to
the carrier.
Even though the wholesale principle
be invoked that the larger payment
in advance to the carrier by the user
of the 180-trip be regarded as emitting
him to a greater discount, even though
the greater risk of loss of ticket be
considered. it is difficult to see what
warrants such a spread as exists un-
der the respondents tariff between the
daily charges under the sixty-trtp
ticket and the 1S0-trip ticket. The
present cost per trip under this three
months ticket Is by comparison with
the fares of other carriers evidently
too low