OCR Text |
Show COURTS CLASH OYER FREIGHT RATES . . r WASHINGTON. May 22. R-egula-. Hon of railroad freight rates ordlnar-' ordlnar-' lly Is a complicated question, Involving Involv-ing intrlc" matters of law, but it becomes t-ven u more serious problem prob-lem when two regulating authorities clash In a proiwsllion of the reasonableness reason-ableness of rates. Thoughtful observers observ-ers of freight rate regulation have an-; an-; tldpated tbat, Boonor or later, a conflict con-flict of authority wwild arise botwoen j tbo Interstate commerce commission ' and on or morn of the stilt railroad ' corneals n ions concerning the Axing of rates. Precisely such a conflict has developed de-veloped over a comparatively lnslg-ni-j flcont cao thst recently was brought before the Interstate commerce commission. com-mission. It was that of 1-5. K. Saunders Saund-ers & Co. of Pensax-ola, Fla., against tbe Southern Kipross company. The cotuplalnanis are flsh dealers and fihlp-. fihlp-. pers at Pensacobi. , In the ordinary course of their business busi-ness they operate largely in the state of Alabama, shipping fish In great quantities from Pensacola to points of destination In that state by express.- Recently th railroad commission commis-sion of Alabama flxod an express rate on fish from Mobile, Ala, to other Intrastate polDts that was far below the express rates from Pensacola to the ?ame points of destination. This rate the expf8 company was forced to put Into effect, although It protested j against It. Mobllo fish shippers, by reason of this rate, were given an ad- vantage over the fish shippers of Pensacola Pen-sacola to points within Alabama, although. al-though. In many Instances, the distance dis-tance from Pensacola to points of destination was less than from Mo-bl'e. Mo-bl'e. Tbe Southern Express company com-pany refused to moke the fame rates from Peasncola to points In Alabama as It was required to make from Mobile. Mo-bile. tt refusal resulting In a complaint com-plaint Mod against It with tbe Interstate Inter-state commerce commission. Commission's Opinion. The commission's opinion in tbe case was banded down today. It was prepared by Commissioner Harlan and la th nnanlmou(Judgment of the commission. . . The commission states Its posit ton In these terms: "Upon general principles of com- lly the action of a state commission In fixing rates cn state tratflc must be treated with all due respect, but this commission has never felt Itself bound to accept a state made rate as a necessary neces-sary measure of Interstate rate. Wllh-I Wllh-I out criticizing the state commission rates of Mobile this commission. In the light of the record and Its own Investigations finds Iself unable to accept the Alabama rates na a fair and reasonable basis for fixing the defendants' de-fendants' rates to tho same points from Pensacola." The situation and the testimony are discussed thoroughly in the opinion. In announcing that it would not eloae the record in the case until the defendant de-fendant had made further efforts io contest the order of tbe Alabama commission com-mission the Interstate commerce commission com-mission says: "The carriage of traffic by a common com-mon carrier for one community or one 6et of shippers at less than It carries the Bam" trafflce for a like distance, and under substantia'ly similar transportation trans-portation condition, for another community com-munity or ain.thcr set of shipper. is noi only in conf rnenlion of fundamental funda-mental right and Jiftlce, but Is essentially essen-tially iniquitous. If such dscrlmlna- I Hon is practiced by a common car- rler as between communities or dif- ferent sets of shippers, within the same state and on traffic moving only within tbe state, redreso may usually be had under the state lav. s On the other hand, if an interstate carrier Is guilty of such a discrimination with respect to interstate traffic, redress may be had vnder the act to regulate commerce. "But when a carrier, ag in this case, serves two communities similarly situated, sit-uated, by hauling the same traffic under un-der similar conditions from a point of origin to destinations In the same state and also to the same dostlnj-Hons dostlnj-Hons from an interstate point T origin. It Is not altogether clear that existing legislation affords redress against a discrimination, as belweeu the two points, when resulting from an order by the state commission. Hut unless some such power Is Indeed Inde-ed somewhere under appropriate legislation. leg-islation. It la evident that slate-made rates, if established m pursuance of a narrow selfiph local policy, may not only hinder and harm, and burden j interstate traffic anl interstate interests, in-terests, but may, if adjusted with that ! end in view, take from a point in another state a business that naturally natur-ally belongs to that nolnt or In which It Is entitled at least to participate, cn the basis of equal rates and equal opportunity "On principle it is clear that a carrier car-rier operating through two or in. .re states la but one vehicle of commerce, andall traffic moved bv It. whether state or Intersfate, ought, when the general transportation conditions are the KJiine, lo bear its just proportion of the cost of operation and ought to yield no more and no 1-ps than iu i-m proportion of the revenues of the carriers." |