« PreviousContinue »
Petroleum in Southern Territory, Rail, 278 I.C.C. 323, 327; also petition of Southern
Rail carriers in I. & S. Docket No. 5710 for vacation of suspension order; letter from J. G. Kerr as Agent for respondent rail lines, October 5, 1949; brief filed March 10, 1950, p. 6, 9, 68, insisting on right to establishment of rates to "regain and retain" and "to participate in a fair share" of the traffic, and p. 6, quoting shippers estimate of rate "necessary for the rails if they were to participate in a fair share of this traffic." Order of Commission set aside, Apr. 10, 1952, by Statutory 3-judge court, Atlanta & S. A. Bay Ry.Co., 104 Fed. Supp. 193.
Alcoholic Liquor in the South, I.C.C. 81, 93.
Sulphur from Port Sulphur, to Dubuque, Iowa, 280 1.C.C. 593, 595.
Alcoholic Liquors in Official Territory, 283 I.C.C. 219, 227.
Confectionery within Southern Territory, 284 I.C.C. 105, 109.
Petroleum between Portland and Spokane, P. & S. Points, 286 1.C.C. 516, 517.
Petroleum Products in Southern Territory, 54 M.C.C. 704, 705, 707.
Soda Ash from Baton Rouge and North Baton Rouge, La., 289 1.C.C. 387.
Export Grain from Buffalo to New York, 292 I.C.C. 647, 650.
Motor Fuel Antiknock Compounds to the East, 292 I.C.C. 631.
Gun Wad Felt from Newark, N.J. to Anska, Minn. 293 I.C.C. 318, 319, reversed,
294 I.C.C. 404 - compare dissent of Commissioner Alldredge, applying test of necessity of proposed rate "to enable respondents (rail carriers) to compete fairly for a sha re of the traffic." The first reference to "fair share" came from the shipper; on reconsideration, the division merely passed on the accuracy of that statement. The difference between "fair share" and "com
pete fairly" is obvious and is important. Oleomargarine, Cincinnati and Columbus to the East, 294 I.C.C. 349, 354.
Magazines, Oleo and Rubber, Central to East Points, 294 1.C.C. 363, 364-5.
Paper Wrappers from St. Louis, Mo., to Louisville, Ky., 63 M.C.C. 422, 423.
1.(b) It appears as a recitation made by or said to be made by a shipper as to what
reduction is necessary is the carrier is to retain or regain traffic the shipper controls.
See also Gun Wad Felt from Newark, N.J. etc., under 1(a) supra.
Drugs or Medicines from Greensboro, N. C. to Minnesota, 296 I.C.C. 525, 527.
Tinplate from Fairfield, Ala., to New Orleans, 294 I.C.C. 397, 399 (see also
"Fair Share" used as the equivalent of a fair opportunity for the carrier to compete for the traffic, all circumstances being considered.
Tobacco, North Carolina Points to Southern Points (Ra il), 280 I.C.C. 767, 773.
Emory Transp. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 292 I.C.C. 346, 348.
Unfinished Piece Goods from and within the South, 292 I.C.C. 772, 776.
Tinplate from Fairfield, Ala. to New Orleans, 294 I.C.C. 397, 403 (see also under
1(b)) ("Fair share" on reconsideration changed to "while not precluding (the carriers) from obtaining a fair and reasonable share of the traffic.)"
Candy and Confectionery in Official Territory, 279 I.C.C. 703, 709.
"Fair Share" Used Casually, or Mere Surplusage.
Canned goods from the Pacific Coast to Group J. 296 I.C.C. 467, 469
Phosphate Rock from Florida to Joliet, ni. 278 I.C.C. 99, 108,
Cases in which it might appear from the record or the original report that the terms might have been used as a test, but on further consideration by a division or by the Commission, the decision was based on other grounds.
Scrap Tobacco from Newark, N. J. to Selma, Ala., 297 I.C.C. 424 reversing 293
Cigar boxes from Newark, N. J. to Selma, Ala., 296 I.C.C. 69, 70 reversing 293
Commodities between North and South Pacific Coast, 63 M.C.C. 505, affirming 62
Excerpt from speech of Commissioner Howard Freas
April 19, 1956 on "Fair Share"
It seems to be believed in many quarters that the Commission regards it as
one of its functions to divide traffic on some preconceived basis. Some seem to think
that where two major forms of transportation are involved the Commission under
takes to divide the traffic 50-50. Others talk about different proportions but never
theless suggest the idea that the objective is to influence the flow of traffic accord
ing to some concept of "fair share" for each form of transport.
Unfortunately, there are in the reports expressions which give support to
these views. In the myriads of reports that are necessitated by the endless litiga
tion before the Commission it seems inevitable that expressions are used that mean
one thing to the writer and something quite different to someone else. We try to
avoid such situations, but a foolproof way of doing so absolutely and at the same
time keeping up with the heavy volume of work does not yet seem to have been found.
A number of reports employ the words 'fair share" or others of similar im
port. It may be that these expressions account for much of the misunderstanding.
Either this meaning should be made clear or the term should not be used.
Without undertaking to speak for any of my colleagues, I feel certain that no
Commissioner undertakes to influence traffic on a preconceived share basis. Such
a course would be arbitrary, to say the least. Opinions as to the merits of opposing
views may differ, but I challenge any suggestion of intentional arbitrariness.
What then is meant by expressions such as "fair share" in connection with
traffic flow? First let me observe that aside from the fact that it seems to bring
about confusion there is nothing wrong with the term "fair share". "Share" means
a part or a division. "Fair" as here used means equitable, just, affording no undue
advantage. To the extent Commission action influences the flow of traffic it should
tend to accord to each form of transportation its "fair share."
If this is conceded we come to the question of how a fair share is to be de
termined. The Commission's function, as I see it, is to accord to the various forms
of transport an equality of opportunity. When this is done the fair apportionment
of traffic will take care of itself,
Equality of opportunity is created by permitting each carrier involved to
establish rates which reflect that carrier's advantages. The carrier which by
reason of advantages, inherent or acquired, can perform the service most econom
ically should determine the rate pattern. Within limits, others should be permitted
to compete, but those with higher operating costs should not be allowed to break down
the rate structure unjustifiably. When the course described is followed the economics of the situation and the desires of the shippers will take care of the division of traffic
and wasteful and uneconomic transportation will, at the same time, be avoided.
Mr. ROGERS (presiding). Thank you, sir, for a fine statement.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Turney, I want to also compliment you for a very thorough job in preparing the statement that you have presented, giving the views of your organization on this highly complicated and controversial problem.
Do I gather from your illustrations here and your testimony, the presentation, that you indicate that the railroads are better off financally by the fact that you have the truckers to give them competition?
Mr. TURNEY. I think so.
Mr. Harris. In other words, I got the implication if not the direct statement, as illustrated by the chart and explained in your statement that the fact that, with the existence of the truckers, the railroad industry is nearly $200 million better off.
Mr. Turney. Than they would be if they cut their rates 20 perint in order to put the trucks out of business, yes.
Mr. Harris. That is a pretty interesting analysis. I know the general public will be glad to have that information, too.
I just wondered how big the trucking industry should get and how much of the traffic the trucking industry should assume the burden of taking care of before the railroad industry would not be a lot better off than they are today.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, I want to be perfectly fair about it, but the only reason that the railroad industry is not highly profitable today is their passenger deficit. That deficit amounts to about 7 or percent of their total freight revenue. If they did not have that deficit, if the passenger traffic, their exDress, their passengers and their mail, paid its way, the railroad earnI would be well over 6 percent from their freight traffic.
in some of them, in the Pocohontas carriers, it would be up around Derrent.
Mr. Harris. Do you believe this statement, in your opinion, to be s mirrect policy! The ICC should fix reasonable minimum rates to a low competitive railroad rates to be judged in the light of railrond mnditions and the competitive truck rates to be judged in the light fuck conditions.
Mr. TURNEY. No, sir, I do not. Mr. HARRIS. You do not think that to be the fact ! Mr. Trener. No, sir, for the reasons which I have indicated. Mr. HLARRIS. You say that the Interstate Commerce (Commission fre not, as has been alleged by representatives of the railroad indus'my, consider the economic effect of another mode of transportation 7. determining what a particular rate should be.
Jr. TURNEY. That is my judgment, and made after a conscientious ily of all the decisions I could find on the subject. Mr. Harris. I have great regard for your knowledge and experience this field. You have certainly indicated here today your familiarity
h the subject. If that is true, how do you account for the decision of the Interare Commerce Commission in the illustrations presented to us yes
play by Mr. Jervis Langdon, on page 10 of his statement? Let us vt take one of them.
**456 - 56--pt. 28