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
The English law does not object to the paying of a commission on a large
amount of traffic provided the same discount is given to all shippers
who attain the stated volume of business, but a higher commission to one
big shipper than to another big shipper is vigorously repressed. A case
of this kind was decided by the Railroad Commission in 1901. The court
found that the Midland Railway had given Rickett, Smith & Company, coal
dealers, a preference of ¼ of one percent in rebates on their annual
traffic account, and it enjoined the railway and allowed damages to the
complaining shippers. Some 75 suits were entered by different shippers
for this one cause. In the same report 28 cases are listed relating to
discrimination in brewery traffic, and 16 other applications for
injunctions against undue preference in respect to facilities, rates on
coke, brick, flour and grain, and other commodities to certain shippers
or particular places, and one request from the Inverness Chamber of
Commerce for an order enjoining the railways from selling season tickets
to big shippers (with a traffic worth $1,200 to $5,000 or more a year)
at lower rates than they will sell them to ordinary passengers. This
last application was dismissed by the court. England does not object to
premiums on volume, provided all shippers of equal size receive the same
treatment. That’s the principle the Trusts believe in; if vigorously
worked the principle is a powerful trust builder.
The English Commission has power to enjoin undue preference in rates or
facilities and give damages for the same, to fix reasonable charges in
some cases, and to order rates increased since the revision of 1892 to
be reduced to the previous level on proof of unreasonableness.
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