| Show THE SPOKANE RATE CASE The San Stu Francisco F Chronicle pre pro presents pres s the tho Coast view of ot the Spokane I rate case cose decision as follows Tho The Interstate Commerce Commis Commission Commission sion line held that the rates from Crom Chi Chicago cago c o and St SU Louis common points to are unreasonable per por se and has hua hn ordered very substantial reductions tiona Ibo Iho 1 bo main ground of or the de do decision seems oems o mG to be that thai taking nil all es essential essential elements of the tho situation into consideration the earnings of or the Northern Pacific and Great Northern In recent years Jers have been excessive That as our readers snow Know Is the tho ground upon which the Chronicle has lias always held that our own on people must rely reI not only for tor preventing any nn increase In transcontinental rates but to secure their reduction It was WIlS of ot course courso not expected that tho Com Corn Commission Commission mission would undertake to upset upcot the tho I weB settled doctrine that rates be between between tween sea ports may mar be lower lo r than rates by br the samo same line Une to nearer In Interior tenor points and It did not On tho the contrary It expressly stated that rates from rom the East to Spokane might law lawfully In lawfully fully ully be made n a c higher than from Cram the same annie points to Puget sound The de do decision e deals dc lIs merely with the tho rates to Spokane which were were tho the only onh rates before the Commission The roads are at liberty to make their rates to Puget sound as much lower loer the rates to Spokane as ns It finds necessary to hold old tho the traffic The important part of the decision Is the statement of oC principles on which the decision rests and which will be bo I applied to similar cases in the future Each Item in the statement Is worthy orth orthof of careful analysis and discussion but ue we w now call attention only to the tho sec second second second ond paragraph which is as s follows Water rate competition may mar justify a difference In carload minimums and in inthe inthe inthe the right of or combining different com commodities at the carload rate as well as In the rate Itself it olf but carriers should be bo prepared to Justify such preference I I The TIle sting of that paragraph Is In Its tall It Is a distinct notice that water w ter competition which Justifies a preference for a seaport must be real realand realand and not merely Imaginary The Tho exist existence existence ence of nn an ocean or a river v which renders competition possible does not justify a preference for or a city eft unless there thore arc are upon that ocean or river ships actively competing for traffic at rates rateR which compel a reduction of rail rates in order or er to hold business Rates over oer the whole line lino must In the tho first place be reasonable and equitably bly adjusted between communities When that has bas been done tho the rail railroad railroad railroad road company ir Iry irv v If it so desires re duco tho the rates to tho the seaport sum still sufficiently below bolow those which are reason reasonable reasonable reasonable able to Lo hold its Hs traffic Ho How Ilow that principle will work out as nB applied to 10 Puget sound aoun points as com corn compared pared with Spokane or as ns applied to this city as compared with Reno has haa yet to be decided but it would appear that If this city Is to have hae preferential tail rail rates as S compared with interior cities It will frill be by br reason reMon of or actual sea competition which shall shaH be vir ery different rant from Crom any that has hM recently existed And It would seem to be up to our merchants to sure suro that they get fet such competition |
