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
“Boots and shoes are carried from Chicago to Colorado common points at
$2.05 per hundred, from Chicago to California at $1.50 per hundred. If a
jobber in Colorado wishes to ship boots and shoes to California he must
pay $3, making a total freight rate of $5.05 from Chicago to California
in this way. Cotton-piece goods under commodity rates are shipped from
Boston to the Missouri River for 52 cents per hundred, while the rate
from the Missouri River to Denver is $1.25 for a haul of one-third the
distance. The rate from the Missouri River through Denver to California
is only $1.”[131]
No wonder a Denver manufacturer said to the Industrial Commission: “My
city, Denver, and State, Colorado, and all the territory embraced in the
one hundred and fifth meridian section, are violently discriminated
against by the railroads and express company. We are denied commercial
equality, which forbids the development of our resources. Our freight
rates are anywhere from 100 to 300 percent higher per ton per mile than
those of our Eastern and Western competitors.”[132]
Such conditions tend to force dealers to points on the Missouri River or
east of it. The shipper at St. Joseph on the Missouri River, for
example, can get goods from Chicago at 80 cents and reship to San
Francisco for $1.50, while the Denver shipper must pay $2 from Chicago
to Denver and $3 from Denver to San Francisco,—$5 for the Denver shipper
against $2.30 for the St. Joseph man.[133]
CHAPTER XV.
LONG-HAUL DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The long-haul clause did not realize the intent of its framers. It
received a series of shocks from the United States Supreme Court, which
produced, if not paralysis, at least a bad case of nervous
prostration.[134]
At first, believing that the law would be enforced in accordance with
its purpose and intent to get rid of unjust and needless discrimination
between localities, the Northern and Western roads revised their tariffs
in good faith in reference to long and short haul rates, but, later,
when they found that the Supreme Court did not intend to enforce the 4th
section, they joined the Southern roads in practical disregard of it
wherever they found it convenient to do so, and only in a few cases has
their disregard been checked.
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