Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1920-09-16
ELEVATOR MEN COMPLAIN
Cars Furnished BY Capacity Does
Not Suit

Not Suit
Farmers elevators have been com
planning bitterly Of the recent rulin,
Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission which distributes cars in pro
portion to the capacity Of the eleva
tor. Senator Capper forwarded d,
protest to the Interstate Commerc,
Commission on behalf Of the Beloit
Wellsville and Burlingame farmers
elevators.
In response TO this The directors
Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission sent the following reply to
Senator Capper:
"You are advised that the rules
which have been adopted by rail-
roads for the distribution Of grain
cars during periods Of car shortage
are based upon the decisions Of this
Commission in the Farmers Elevator
case Al I. G. G., 475. and the Tan
NJ case SO I. @, CI 4O1. These cases
were decided after hearings and argu-
ments in which, this question was
carefully considered There are n
few questions npoh which there is
such difference Of, opinion among
shippers themselves, as the one in
volving the distribution Of grain cars
during periods of car shortage. Some
shippers urge that what a particular
shipper did during normal periods
should be the basis for distributing
cars when there is car shortage.
Others urge that cars should be sent
to shippers according as they order
them and without regard to the
quantity of grain they have ready to
ship. While the majority of ship
pers appear to favor the rule which
cars in the relative pro-
portion in which grain is offered to
the carrier for shipment, such grain
being actually on hand and conven-
lently located for prompt loading.
"The Commission approved the
latter rule as reasonable in the cases
referred to. In speaking
Of this rule in Farmers Elevator case,
the Commission said:
"with all of their elevators filled
shippers probably would offer all Of
their grain for. shipment in order to
obtain the greatest possible share Of
available equipment. In that event
shippers with the largest proportion
If available cars provided they offer
Ill of their grain for shipment, which,
however. will not constitute undue
preference. Thus, for instance, the
Farmers Elevator company, with two
elevators at Canton, Of combined
Of $4,000 bushels, as COM
,ared with a combined capacity OF
elevators owned by it's competitors
It the same point Of 81 900 bushels,
would receive Ala per cent Of the
lvailable car supply at that station,
instead Of 25 per cent, as under the
citation plan.
"The rule approved by the Com !
mission in cases referred to merely
ecognizes what seems to be funda-
mental. namely that 1t is the duty
( common carriers to provide trans
ortation facilities upon reasonable
euuest according to the volume OF
usiness offered to them by particular
hippers. The fact that this seems
, give the shipper with the largest
Ievator the greatest numbers OF cars ,
not unduly preferential as 1t sim ,,
ly recognizes that the shipper with ,
,e most grain to ship is entitled rela- ,
velv and as matter Of fairness,
the greatest number OF cars In =
hich to make his shipments.
"The rule suggested by your con-
ituent seems to Be based upon an
.roneous conception Of the legal 7
,ty of common carriers with respect
providing transportation. 1t also
lis to take into account the fact q
at a person is. generally speaking, 9
TITLED to the fruits that naturally =
wv from his initiative and industry. "
,r example, the man who has an :,
evator containing 10000 bushels :,
grain and who offers that guam :,
y Of grain to a carrier Is entitled n
latively to a larger share Of avail A.
lie cars than the man who has only ~
300 bushels of grain to offer. In .,
" event, the Commission has on :,
least two occasions formally de- a,
led that a rule based upon that =,
inciple is fair and reasonable. =,
preover, that principle seems, gen a. q,
ally speaking, to satisfy shippers. =,
10 Commission has no theory OF its -,
m to exploit in this connection" "