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
Within 5 days after the Commission was appointed a large number of
railroads applied for relief from the long and short haul clause; and in
many cases, on the ground of water competition, etc., relief was
given.[135] The Commission held that dissimilar circumstances existed
under the 4th section in case of competition with water carriers, or
railroads not under the Act (foreign railroads and railroads lying
wholly within a single State), and in “rare and peculiar cases of
competition between interstate railroads, when a strict application of
the rule would be destructive of legitimate competition,”[136] but
ordinarily competition between interstate roads was not regarded as
sufficient to relieve them from the 4th section.
In November, 1892, the Commission decided the famous Alabama Midland
Case. The complaint was that rates from the East and Northeast to Troy,
Ala., were higher than to Montgomery, a longer haul passing through
Troy. The railroads pleaded competition at Montgomery. The Commission
held that railway competition would not justify departure from the rule
of Section 4 of the Interstate Act. Five years later, in November, 1897,
the United States Supreme Court sustained the judgment of the Circuit
Court and Circuit Appeals Court, overruling the Commission, and held
that the existence of railway competition at Montgomery made a
substantial difference of circumstances within the meaning of the
exception in Section 4.[137]
The Court held that competition even of interstate lines is a
substantial difference of conditions which may justify a greater charge
for a short than for a long haul, but said, “We do not hold that the
mere fact of competition, no matter what its character or extent,
necessarily relieves the carrier from the restraints of the 3rd and 4th
sections.”
In the 2d section, which prohibits any rebate or discrimination and is
intended to enforce equality of shippers over the same line, “‘similar
circumstances and conditions’ refers to matters of carriage, and does
not include competition between rival routes;” but in the 3d and 4th
sections “similar circumstances and conditions” includes competition,
which “is one of the most obvious and effective circumstances that make
the conditions under which a long and short haul is performed, and
substantially dissimilar.” The railroad people think the circumstances
are very dissimilar also when the Oil Trust or the Beef Combine
threatens to take hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of business if
they don’t get the rates and facilities they want, while Messrs. A. B.
C., etc., ship their goods and pay the schedule rates without suggesting
any reduction. This dissimilarity is harder for the railroads to deal
with than the other. They can stop competing among themselves on
long-haul schedule rates more easily than they can enforce equal rates
on the big shippers.
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