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
Industrial Commission, 1900, vol. iv, pp. 441–442. Shippers in
Norfolk, Nebr. for example, pay the local rate of 45 cents per cwt.
(on first-class goods) to Sioux City on the Missouri River, plus the
rate from Sioux City to Chicago, while Fremont, a rival town near
Norfolk, has the same rates as Sioux City, the local rate not being
added in this case to the Missouri River rate. This gives Fremont
manufacturers and shippers a decided advantage over those of Norfolk,
and tends to build up Fremont and stunt the growth of Norfolk. The
witness suggested that “if the rates were established by the
Government instead of at the will and pleasure of the railway
managers, it is a natural conclusion that points having the same
general conditions would receive equal benefits.”
Footnote 119:
Cator’s “Rescue the Republic,” p. 15.
Footnote 120:
“National Consolidation of Railways,” Lewis, p. 102.
Footnote 121:
“National Consolidation of Railways,” Lewis, p. 83.
Footnote 122:
Martin _v._ Southern Pacific, Central Pacific, and Union Pacific
Railroads. 1 I. C. C. Decis. 1.
Footnote 123:
8 I. C. C. Decis. 481. The Commission made an order that the Kearney
rate should not exceed the Omaha rate by more than 15 cents, but the
Southern Pacific refused to obey, and the Circuit Court declined to
enforce the order on the ground that the Commission had not found the
rate to Kearney unreasonable in itself, but only in comparison, citing
190 U. S. 273.
Footnote 124:
9 I. C. C. Decis. 17: Rep. 1901, 30.
Footnote 125:
I. C. C. Rep. 1899, p. 31.
Footnote 126:
The Commission ordered the roads to discontinue this practice. They
refused. And the United States Supreme Court sustained them in their
refusal. (4 I. C. C. Decis., July, 1890, p. 104; Rep. 1901, p. 25.)
Footnote 127:
Nov. 1895, the Commission ordered that the rates from Pueblo to
California should not exceed 75 percent of the rates from Chicago to
California. The railroads refused to obey. Proceedings in court were
begun by the Commission to enforce their order. Then the railroads
yielded. They kept the rates down about 2 years, till Oct. 17, 1898.
Then the Southern Pacific increased the rates. The Colorado Fuel &
Iron Company on whose complaint the investigation and order were made,
sued for damages and an injunction, Oct. 1898. The Circuit Court
enjoined the railroads from charging more than the rates fixed by the
Commission. But April 16, 1900, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the decision on the ground that the United States Supreme Court had
ruled that the Commission cannot fix rates. (I. C. C. Rep. 1895, pp.
41–43; and Rep. 1900, pp. 55–61); also (101 Fed. Rep. 779) an appeal
to the Supreme Court was dismissed per stipulation, Nov. 1901 (46 L.
Ed. 1264).
Footnote 128:
Ind. Com. iv, 257.
Footnote 129:
Ind. Com., iv, 257.
Footnote 130:
_Ibid._, 67.
Footnote 131:
_Ibid._
Footnote 132:
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