Evening star., 1915-04-06
RATES DECISION
CUTS BOTH WAYS
Victory and Defeat for the
Commuters on B. & O..
Railroad Lines.
REDUCED RATE TICKETS
CONSIDERED BY THEI.C. c.
Criticism of Railway Methods of Ad-
justing Fares-Majority and
Two Minority Opinions.

Ohio railroad are contained in the
opinion in that case handed down today
by the interstate commerce commission
The commission prohibits the railroad
from increasing the rates on the sixty
trip monthly commutation tickets, per
mits the withdrawal of the twenty
four, fifty and 1s0 trip tickets, and al
lows the increases in the ten-trip tick
cts SO long as they do not amount tc
more than 80 per cent of hve times the
round-trip fare. The order Of the COM
mission becomes effective May Is next
The majority report of the commits
sion finds fault with the methods EN-
ployed by the railroad in arriving al
rates, declaring that important mat
ters in the consideration of rate in
creases have been minimizsd, and as
serts that "a rule of thumb method OF
fare fixing must be used with circum-
spection.' It further says that the ere
spondent has made rather too much OF
this arbitrary standard, which, it as
serts, is now common among carriers
In determining fares of the nature OF
those now under consideration"
Dissenting Opinions.
Two dissenting opinions accompan ny
the majority findings. One. by Com
missioner Clements, is strong plea
for the commuters. and declares that
the findings and conclusions of the major
ity are not in accordance with assertions
made in their report. Commissioner Har-
Ian registers dissent against that part of
the majority report denying the roads
the right to increase the sixty-trip
rates. but concurs in the other part of
the opinion. He declares that in view
of the finding in the per cent rate
case 'it seems to me entirely just to
lay that small additional burden upon
the commuter.'
Early in the opinion. the ma jority
report, which was written by Com
missioner Daniels, who heard the case,
INDUCES in criticism of the methods
employed by the railroad in an effort
to justify it's claim.
ITO compare the old and the new
sixty-trip tickets and represent that
the difference in their price Is what
the average commuter will have to
pay, were the proposed schedule to go
into effect. is not an accurate state
ment of the situation. for the exhibits
Of the respondent show that for the
year ending June, 1914, on the Wash
ington branch as far as Laurel, S77
s2s 1s0-trip tickets, while on the en-
tire Metropolitan branch during the
same period only 257 sixty-trip tickets
were sold, as compared with S93 1S0-
trip tickets. 1t is therefore obvious
that, as to those commuters who now
buy the 1s0-trip tickets. their addi-
tional monthly payment for daily
transportation per person. were the
suspended tariff approved in entirety.
would be represented by the difference
trip ticket and one-third of the price
of the old 1s0-trip ticket. And this
difference is so pronounced-averag
approximately As per cent that the
carrier must be held to a very exact
explanation as to the necessities for
the particular increases.
Comment on Cost Exhibits.
After quoting extensively from the
cost exhibits of the railroad, submitted
at the hearing. particularly with re-
gard to charges for the use Of the
Union station, the opinion says they
indicate that the revenue from local
and Communication traffic on the Wash
ing costs: that upon the Metropolitan
branch the revenue from this traffic
not only covers operating costs, but
also furnishes a substantial amount
toward taxes. capital charges and pos
sibly profit: that treating the two
branches as whole the total earnings
just about cover operating costs"
ANY error made in the exhibits in
ascertaining the direct expenses would
correspondingly affect the results
shown" continues the report.
During the entire year ending June.
1914. on both the Metropolitan and
Washington branches the respondent
sold only 1000 sixty-trip tickets and
1881 186-trip tickets, SO that the dem
sity Of the Communication traffic in soues-
tIon is not great. This fact cuts two
ways and suggests two conclusions
either that. if the Communication traffic
be dealt with as a unit separate from
the other passenger traffic, the expense
per passenger Is high, and therefore a
high rate Is necessary; or that, II this
be regarded as incidental. not to be
treated as an entity apart from the
other passenger service except that
actual loss is not to be incurred there
by, il is not to be strictly governed by
comparisons of expense attributed to
normal passenger traffic and may prop
erly be carried at relatively low
rate.
Other Elements Considered,
I'm fixing reasonable fares for this
particular commutation traffic elements
other than cost which determine rea-
sonableness must not be CLOSED over.
traveller, If often vaguely conceived, is
none the less real factor, and fares
tending to put the use of the railroads
beyond the reach of the average COM
muter of particular region or which
might tend to compel on a large scale
changes of residence. or which tend to
disrupt the community life of those de-
pendent upon this service. must be
viewed In the light of the carriers OBJ
legation as a common carrier designed
for community service. The respondent
has rather elected to treat these con-
siderations of minor Importance in de-
termining reasona bleness, and pins it's
plea for the advanced fares upon cost
figures and the fact that many carriers
have arrived at a substantial agree
ment in making the communication fares
accord with a general standard
particular districts are to be dealt
with by carriers when they come to set
new fares in the light Of the peculiar
modifying condition, and a rule Of thumb
method OF fare fixing must be used with
circumspection. The respondent has made
rather too much Of this arbitrary stand
ard which II asserts is now common
among carriers in determining fares of
the nature of those now under considera-
tton.
"In the early days Of the communication
traffic under consideration inducements
were offered by the respondent for set
1Confinued ON Fourth page -