Bisbee daily review., 1916-03-04
FREIGHT CHARGES IN EXCESS OF ORIGINAL
 CLAIMS ARE UNJUST
So Says Arizona Rate Expert Who Suggests that Legisla- ton Be Enacted to Give Re- lief to Shippers.

being called upon for additional
 time, say 90 days, following the re-
 ceipt of his goods, is endorsed by the
 directors of the Warren District Com
 merclal Club. This action was taken
 upon a letter received by the club
 from A. A. Betts, rate expert of the
 Corporation Commission, and he is
 congratulated on having undertaken
 the matter and promised all the sup
 port which the Commercial Club and
 the local merchants can give him and
 urged to continue in his efforts.
 The matter of further charges be-
 ing made by railroads a considerable
 time after freight has been delivered
 is matter from which merchants ire
 quently suffer and by which any and
 all may at any time be affected. Such
 proceedings are made possible under ruling of the Interstate Commerce Commission, indeed are required thereby. It is in regard to this that | Betts writes as follows:
 Secretary of the Warren District Commercial Club,
 Risbee, Arizona.
 Dear Sir:-While the present Con gress i5 considering certain bills hay ing for their purpose the codification, revision and amendment of the laws | erlating to common carriers of inter- state and foreign commerce, l am Of the opinion that the time is propiti- ous for the introduction of bill that will give to the public relief from an abuse that has grown up under the present law as it has been construed | by the courts and the Interstate Com merce Commission, whereby parties | legally label for charges in the tran | sportation of property are required, weeks, months or even years after delivery of shipment, to pay an add tional sum over the amount demanded by the carrier at the time of delivery.
 The law. as it has been interpreted by the courts and the Interstate Com merce Commission. holds that pub lished tariffs speak with equal author ity to the shipper and the carrier anG that both are equally chargeable with notice and knowledge of the rates. l am not, and have never been, in hearty sympathy with this construc tion. Insofar as it intends to proven; indirect rebates and discrimination, il is, of course, commendable, but, in my opinion, such prohibition may be ac ccmplished by holding the carrier tC strict accountability for failure to ad | here to the published tariffs. law prescribing a suitable penalty fol negligent or wilful failure on the par of the carrier would fully meet the | demands and safeguard the interests | of the public.
 l am assuming that the successful l merchant turns his goods at least three times each year. On this theory | the consignment on which he pay freight today will have been disposed of within four months. To his cos price has has added the freight rharS l es and a reasonable margin Of prof l and on this basis has made his sales | It would be folly to suppose thai thereafter. in the eyetn of a demand l by the carrier for additional freight | charges, the merchant could go tC | his customer, the ultimate consumer | andlagainst whom, in its final analysis | the charge should lie. and collect iron | hi inn, to nf hn fore the full burden of the loss mus; fall upon the merchant and his legiti | mate earnings reduced to an unprohi | able margin or perchsnce entirel! | wiped out. That the law should bt | so franied as to permit the infiiction | Of such an injustice is regrettable, an6 that it should specifically require it is indefensible.
 The federal and state courts anG | the Interstate Commerce Commission | have with unanimity of accord held that the carriers shall not be required to perform any service at less than the so-called 'out-of-pocket cost; in deed, they require that each and every service must return a reasonable l CT centage of profit on the investment and for the service performed, in or der that no department be taxed tol maintain another.
 The average merchant has neither the time nor the opportunity to ac- Quire a proficient knowledge of the tariffs that affect his business. Many tariffs are so complex and technica! that even traffic experts fail to cor rectly interpret them. This being true, it is unjust and unreasonabl that the merchant should be held respon- sible for the application of erroneous rates.
 That local agent Of the carrier IS presumed to be conversant with tar fir and rate matters. The Auditors office has a force of trained experts whose duty is to check the billing. de tect and correct any errors that may have been made by the local agent. With proper attention this should be