The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countriesParsons, Frank
History
The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countries
Parsons, Frank
Railroads -- Freight -- Rates -- United States; Railroads and state -- United States
In March, 1898, the Interstate Commission investigated rebates on flour
from St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth to Atlantic seaports. The
Commission had information of wide departures from the published tariff.
It says: “The inquiry was greatly hampered by the disappearance of
material witnesses before subpœnas for their attendance could be served,
the inability of several who did testify to recall transactions there of
recent date, and the evident reluctance of others to disclose any
information bearing on the subject involved. All of the railway
witnesses denied knowledge of any violation of the statute, and most of
the accounting officers testified to the effect that if rebates had been
paid they would necessarily know about them, and that their accounts did
not show any such payments. It was nevertheless fully established by the
investigation that secret concessions had been generally granted on this
traffic, and that the carriers had allowed larger rebates to some
shippers than to others.”[355]
After the St. Paul investigation in 1898 the Commission entered on an
investigation at Portland, Ore., in respect to rates between the coast
and points on and east of the Missouri River. “It was established by the
proof that secret rates generally prevailed at Portland and common
points, and that transportation was, in effect, sold to the lowest
bidder. The lawful rates were ignored, except as they might serve as a
standard in making agreements for lower charges.... Some of the
merchants conformed to the law, but in so doing they were at a
disadvantage in competing with those who disregarded the statute; and in
many instances this disadvantage represented more than a fair profit
upon the commodities involved. Most of the merchants who admitted that
they had thus violated the law declared themselves unable to remember
who paid them the rebates, or when or upon what shipments any illegal
rate concessions had been made. Some testified that they had kept
account of the unlawful transactions, but that when they heard of this
investigation they destroyed their memoranda in order to defeat
prosecutions on account of their illegal acts. They insisted that
without these data they could give no specific testimony concerning any
of the transactions.”[356]
The Commission found in these and other investigations that “unlawful
rebates have been and are being paid by a great number of carriers,”
but they could not get the specific evidence necessary for
prosecutions.[357]
In its Report for 1904, p. 104, the Commission says: “Railroad officials
often seem to think that it is their duty to withhold facts, on account
of some real or supposed liability to make disclosures that will impair
the railroad’s rights or interests in future judicial proceedings. Some
companies seem to have adopted a settled policy to give the least
possible information, at all times, on any and all subjects.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account