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 respect to the long and short haul abuse, Commissioner Fifer, Brooks
Adams, and others argue that the practical remedy is to make the
long-haul clause of the Commerce Act binding except where the railroads
come in and get an order releasing them to a specified extent from the
operation of the clause.[394] The idea is to put the burden of showing
the need of an exception on the railroad. At present the burden really
rests on the complainant. The railroads disregard the law with impunity.
It is easy to show dissimilar circumstances, and then it is necessary
for the plaintiff to show that the circumstances are not so dissimilar
as to warrant the discrimination made. It is very difficult to satisfy a
court on this point, and so the rates stand and the clause is
practically nullified. Forbid departure from the clause absolutely
unless the carrier has obtained an order of release, and you put the
burden of proof where it should lie, namely, on the party that desires
to depart from the rule of equal treatment.
_A Drastic Cure for Rebating._
For the cure of discrimination, the Transportation Committee of the New
York Board of Trade suggests that Congress enact a law authorizing the
Interstate Commission, in case of any rebate or other device for
securing low rates, to declare that the net rate so made by the railway
or car owners shall be the regular tariff rate, published as such, and
open to all shippers; said new rate to take effect immediately, subject
to appeal within 60 days upon questions of law.[395] The Committee says
the proposal is based on the plan suggested by “Albert Fink, the ablest
of all American railroad managers,” and adopted by the joint executive
committee of the associated railroads in 1882.[396] “The giving of
unlawful rebates by traffic agents would be preventable if the agent
felt assured that such acts would be followed by his dismissal, and the
officers of the company would find a way to remove an offending agent or
to bring him under control if a punishment of suitable severity were
certain to be imposed upon the road for the violation of the law against
the giving of rebates.”
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