nary cases; the Act does not define them; it does | to corporations or to individuals will result is not state the grounds that shall warrant relief, not by itself, under the Act, any ground for a but it plainly intends that these grounds in suspension anywhere of its ordinary operations. every case shall be special and peculiar, and It could not, in fact, be made a ground for rethat where only general reasons operate, the gen- lief, without giving the Commission such a gen eral law shall be left to its general course, how-eral dispensing power as would not be consistever serious may be the consequences in partic-ent with sound principles of government. Conular cases and to particular roads and interests. gress has not intimated a purpose to give such Second: It is also made plain by the Act a power. If the law in its general operation that any order for suspension was intended to were to prove generally and equally mischiev be based upon investigation which would sat-ous in all directions, the Commission instead isfy the Commission that the case was in fact of having the greater power, for that reason, exceptional and fairly within the intent of the would, on the other hand, have no power of provision made for the relief. The jurisdiction suspension whatever; for the simple and plain of the Commission to make orders was evident-reason that there would then be no exceptional ly meant to be somewhat closely restricted. cases for it to act upon, and therefore no cases The Commission, in its correspondence and referred by the Act to its judgment. otherwise, is every day made aware of the prevalence in some quarters of a vague notion that power has been conferred upon it to interfere anywhere, and for any reasons satisfactory to itself, in order to prevent what it may think is likely to be harmful; but you, of course, indulge no such baseless notion. The Commission, as you will agree, must find its authority in the law and not in its own ideas of right or policy. Third: It must be assumed that Congress intended the general Law, in its main feature at least, to be a permanent law for the country. It must therefore have contemplated that considerable sacrifices would necessarily have to be submitted to by some interests, while the general Law was being established, for the very obvious reason that it would be quite impossible to introduce considerable changes in a branch of the law which concerns so intimately the commerce of the country, without serious consequence to some private interests. In all such cases the incidental injuries, however great they may be, are necessarily borne for the general good; and if the Legislature misjudges as to what the general good demands, it is to be expected that in due time it will provide the remedy. The first questions to confront the Commission upon its organization were raised under the fourth section of the Act. Cases in which companies charged more for the shorter than for the longer haul over the same line in the same direction were to be met with in all parts of the country. The reasons for doing this were thought by the managers in many cases to be absolutely imperative, and to concern the interests of the public quite as much as that of the roads themselves. The interests which were involved in the continuance of the custom were very great, and the anticipation of serious injury from any sudden changes was, in some quarters, quite general. The Commission, therefore, had very earnest appeals made to it in support of the corporation, applications for relief from boards of trade and other public or semi-public bodies, and from representatives of large business interests, which feared or professed to fear destruction or bankruptcy. In many cases the appeals seemed to be made in the belief that the probability of injury was of itself a sufficient warrant for the Commission to interfere and grant a relieving order. It is scarcely necessary to say to you that any such belief is without legal support. The probability, or even the certainty, that injury But uniform effects were, of course, as far from being possible as they were from being contemplated. There must and will be excep tional cases. In the absence of any specifica tion of these in the Act itself the Commission was obliged to determine as best it might what cases were probably in the mind of Congress when the exceptional relief was provided for. It also found itself confronted with the ques tion whether the railroads might determine for themselves, but at their peril, whether in any particular case the circumstances and conditions were so far different as to justify the greater charge for the shorter haul, or whether, on the other hand, it was only upon and in view of such different circumstances and conditions that the Commission was empowered to act. Upon these subjects the debates in Congress might be expected to throw some light; but the Commission felt itself justified, if not compelled, to look beyond the record, and to seek such aid in construction as might be derived from a study of the condition of things pertaining to the transportation of persons and property which Congress by the Act had undertaken to deal with. The suspension authorized by the Act was to be ordered after investigation. This was plainly determined by the Act itself. If the order was to have any finality, it would be proper that the investigation should afford opportunity for a hearing to parties who opposed as well as to those who favored the application. This would require considerable time in every case; and had the Commission made no order, ex cept upon full and final hearing, the majority of applications now on its files would, up to this time, have necessarily remained not acted upon. If the applications were taken up in their order, yours would have been among those not yet reached. This fact is mentioned as showing that the giving of temporary relief in some other cases has not placed your road in any worse position than it would necessarily have occupied if the temporary orders had not been made. The Commission, however, deemed it wise to grant some temporary orders on an investigation not as complete as it expected finally to make. This was done in the belief that no considerable mischief could follow from allowing an existing condition of things to remain for a brief period, whether it was then suffered to stand or not, and that harmful results from a sudden change in the law might thereby to some extent be averted. This course also gave the Commission such an opportunity for careful study of the system which Congress undertook to reform as would otherwise have been wanting. If the new Law had been left to operate universally, the old state of things would have been swept away at once, and the Commission, seeing only what had been substituted for it, would have been deprived of the best and most satisfactory means of making just comparison. Such a comparison was important, not merely to enable it to pass finally with full knowledge upon the exceptional cases, but also the better to prepare it to make in its periodical reports such suggestions and recommendations as might naturally be looked for. The Commission felt that in whatever it was doing on any single application, it was acting not less for permanence than for the particular and special relief; and, without making the vain effort to prevent all injury, it deemed itself fully justified in granting orders of temporary suspension in some of the most obvious cases, and where special grounds for urgency were shown, without first making the investigation complete for final action, leaving other cases not thought to be so strong on the affirmative showing to take the more deliberate course. This method of proceeding the Commission at the time believed had important advantages, and it still believes will conduce to the best results in the end. You speak strongly and earnestly of the reasons for granting your application. But in order to warrant its being granted it is not enough that the application, if considered by itself, appears to have merits. The Commission must consider in each case what effect the giving of relief to one applicant will have upon other interests; and your knowledge of railroad matters must enable you to perceive that in some sections of the country the granting of one application may so affect the interests of other roads as to create a necessity for the like relief to several more, the satisfaction of one claim begetting others which are equally meritorious, until, if all are satisfied, the exception becomes the rule. But when such a result is probable, the reasons for declining to make any temporary order are very conclusive. The Commission cannot consent deliberately to enter upon a highway where, to all appearances, there will be no halting place within the limits of its lawful jurisdiction. If a general suspension of the "long and short haul clause" of the statute is not to be made by a single comprehensive order, neither should the same result be reached or approached by the granting of successive orders in individual cases. In whatever the Commission may do, it must keep in view the preservation of the general rule. It is not our purpose in this communication to express any opinion as to what ought to be the final conclusion upon your application. The Commission is not yet prepared to give its decision; and the purpose of this answer to your telegram is merely to place before you some of the reasons which, up to this time, have precluded definite action. That injury results to the parties interested in your road, or to any other person, it sincerely regretted; and your belief that such is the case will be kept in mind as a reason for action as prompt as under the circumstances shall seem consistent with duty. In these views the whole Commission concur. Very Respectfully Yours, T. M. Cooley, Chairman. (May 19, 1887.) Re INMATES OF NATIONAL HOMES. The Commission cannot make an order or give an opinion in advance of an actual complaint and hearing. So held, in the case of an application on behalf of the inmates of the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers and sailors, for a ruling as to whether the granting to them of half rate fares by railroads would be "unjust discrimination " within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. IN N response to the request of General J. C. Black, Commissioner of Pensions, presented on May 18, on behalf of the inmates of the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers for half fare rates, when traveling from one home to another, the Commission, per Schoonmaker, Commissioner, replied as follows: The meritorious character of this application, and the patriotic and humane reasons urged in support of it, are fully appreciated and admitted; but the Commission is not referred to any provision of the Act that authorizes it to make an order or express an opinion upon an ex parte application of this nature. In the absence of such authority, an order or an opinion would have no validity or weight whatever. If the fair meaning of the second section, that the giving of half rates to members of the national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers and sailors, is the allowance of special rate, etc., for a like and contemporaneous service, for certain persons, not common to all, and under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, then such allowance would be unjust discrimination, otherwise not. The trunk lines according to the petition, have taken the responsibility of assuming that the allowance of the half rates desired does not constitute unjust discrimination. Every carrier has the same right to assume its own construction of this provision. The Commission cannot prematurely impose any construction on a carrier, however much some particular construction may be desired. Construction is a judicial act, involved in the decision of some controverted question. The jurisdiction of the Commission in such cases is limited to the discussion of complaints for alleged violation of the law, upon a hearing of the parties interested, and its opinion of the intent of the statute can then be announced. Any order or opinion in advance of a complaint or hearing would be misleading and unfair to those who might be affected by it, and would be unauthorized. The Commission regrets that it has no power to comply with the request of the petition. (May 21, 1887.) Re FILING COPIES OF JOINT TARIFF BY TRAFFIC COMBINATIONS. In reply to an inquiry as to whether more than one member of a traffic combination con sisting of several railroad or freight lines must file copies of their agreements, joint tariffs, etc., Secretary Moseley wrote, by authority of the Commission, that, provided due notice be filed with the Commission, any one member or agent may file returns for all the members of a combination. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF VARIOUS PETITIONS FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE FOURTH SEC- See Re Southern Railway & Steamship Association, ante, 15. C. A. Sindall, Secretary Southern R. R. & S. S. Association. W. F. Shellman, Traffic Manager Central R. R. of Georgia. T. M. Emerson, Gen. Freight & Passenger Agent, Atlantic Coast Line. J. R. Ogden, Vice Com'r Southern R. R. & S. S. Association. S. Haas, Gen. Traffic Manager Associated R. R.'s Va. & Carolinas. J. M. Culp, Gen. Freight & Pass. Agent Louisville & Nashville R. R. C. D. Owens, Traffic Manager C. & S. and S. F. & W. R. R. T. S. Davant, Gen. Freight Agent East Tenn., Va. & Ga. S. A. Pearce, Granite Quarrier, Columbia, South Carolina. H. B. Hammett, Manufacturer of Cotton Goods, Greenville, S. C. R. L. Caughrin, Newberry Cotton Mills. D. E. Converse, Glendale & Clifton Cotton Mills. Dr. C. E. Fleming, Board of Trade, Spartanburg, S. C. Richard McCoy, Lime Interest, Riverton, Va. R. E. Blankenship, Chamber of Commerce, Richmond, Va. A. H. Christian, Manager Richmond Paper Company. J. S. Ellett, Jobbing, Richmond, Va. H. H. Smith, Cotton, Rome, Georgia. L. Johnson, Naval Stores Protective Association. M. F. Amorous, Lumber, Atlanta, Georgia. Chas. E. Hockstrasser, Columbus, Ga., Board of Trade. J. M. Thornburg, Chamber of Commerce, Nashville, Tenn. W. E. Kyle, Gen. Freight & Pass. Agt. Cape Fear & Yadkin Val. R. R. EXPLANATORY NOTE.-The proceedings before the Commission at Atlanta, Mobile, New Orleans and Memphis, in reference to the enforcement and suspension of the fourth (the long and short haul) section of the Interstate Commerce Act upon petitions presented by members of the Southern Railway & Steamship Association, are given in full, not only on account of the importance of the questions involved, but as furnishing precedents which will prove useful to all desiring to present applications to the Commission. As doubt has existed as to the course of procedure to be observed in presenting facts to the Commission, it is thought that the publication of the entire testimony in this instance will give much needed information, as showing the scope of examination and the freedom from fixed A. J. Mossett, Southern Transp. Co., CinWilliam Calder, Wilmington Chamber of Commerce. J. W. Ponder, Opelika, Alabama. E. P. Alexander, " ATLANTA, GEORGIA, April 27, 1887. THE COMMISSION met at 10 A. M. in the rooms of the city council, all the members being present. The Chairman: Gentlemen, the Commission organized under the Interstate Commerce Law has received quite a number of petitions from railroads whose field of operations is in this part of the country, asking for exceptional orders under the Fourth Section of that Act, orders that, as the Commission believes, could only properly be made upon evidence, after an investigation. We have come here today for the purpose of taking such evidence as may be offered in support of those petitions, and also for the purpose of giving an opportun ity to parties who may think their interests or the interests of the public require a denial of the prayer of the petitioners, to present evidence in support of that view of the question. We propose now to enter upon the taking of evidence. We shall receive it as we should if it were evidence in support of a judicial investigation, upon oath; but shall receive at the same time, such documentary evidence and such memorials, if any shall be offered, from public bodies, as it shall be proper to receive in that form. As the petitions are numerous, and as our own time is limited, it has seemed proper to us that we should mark out to some extent in advance, a course of proceeding in order to forms and rules permitted by the Commission. The publication of testimony at length is not, however, at present contemplated in connection with all future cases, but we shall endeavor to always present the facts as fully as a complete and intelligible report may seem to require. These proceedings, together with the opinion by Commissioner Walker, Re Order of Railway Conductors, page 18, ante, the communication of Chairman Cooley in reference to the jurisdiction and powers of the Commission, published on page 73, ante, and the petitions given as precedents on pages 58, 60 and 63, ante, furnish very full information as to the questions which may properly be presented to the Commission, and the manner in which they should be presented. [ED.] expedite our business, and in the hope that by doing so parties whose interests seemed to be identical should, as far as possible, be enabled to concentrate their evidence and their arguments. We hope that method will be taken here, as a necessary course, in order that we may have fully laid before us all the evidence and all the views of those who may think they have facts important for our consideration. We have not expected to take up each of these petitions by itself. It has seemed probable that the facts that would support one, must, to a large extent, support another; and that what would tend to disprove the one would, to a large extent, tend to disprove the others; so that the evidence will largely be taken for its bearing upon all the petitions together. As we proceed, any petitioner desiring to present that which is special to himself, will have the opportunity to do so when he is upon the stand. With these few remarks, sufficiently indicating the course we desire to have pursued, we shall for the time being, leave the matter in the hands of the petitioners, expecting that they will endeavor, as far as possible, to conform to the views expressed and present their evidence as succinctly, clearly, and concisely as may be found practicable. Mr. R. B. Bullock of Atlanta. I have been requested to ask the Commission to be kind enough to suspend for a moment the regular order as indicated by the circular, that you may hear from the chairman of a large meeting which was held last night, representing the different cities, chambers of commerce, manufacturing interests, etc., who are affected and interested in this matter. Mr. J. F. Hanson, of Macon, Georgia, then came forward, and, as Chairman of the meeting above referred to, submitted a memorial prepared by that body, asking for the permanent suspension of the Fourth Section of the Act to regulate commerce. Mr. Hanson. This action was taken in pursuance of a notice posted up in the Kimball House, requesting all parties who had come representing localities or commercial bodies, to meet us last night. Our action was practically unanimous; in fact, I may say it was entirely unanimous; and this action we desire to present as the action of the business interests here represented independent of the railroads. I was also requested to ask the Commission to allow these commercial bodies to present their memorials, if possible, today, in order that they may go home, as many of them live at a great distance. Mr. Norcross of Atlanta. As you have allowed some general matter to be introduced here made that the names of witnesses who were to be examined should be handed in this morning. Is that list now ready? At the Mr. W. S. Chisholm of Savannah. meeting of the railroad companies held last evening, a list of witnesses was prepared. The proposition which you announced this morning was also considered, to wit: that it would be for the interest of all concerned to take up the petitions together so far as they bore upon the same points and the same ques tions. All of the railroads belonging to the Southern Railway & Steamship Association, of course, have joint interests, and those joint interests are set forth in their various petitions. In addition to those roads there is the Charleston & Savannah Railway Company, and the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Com pany, running from Charleston to Savannah, and from Savannah to various Florida points. It is proposed now that all of the petitions of the roads forming the Southern Railway & Steamship Association, and those of the Charleston & Savannah road and of the Sa vannah, Florida & Western road be taken together. Charles A. Sindall then appeared before the Commission, and having been duly sworn was examined as follows: By Mr. E. P. Alexander: Q. Please state to the Commission what position you occupy. A. I am secretary of the Southern Railway & Steamship Association. Q. Are you familiar with the rates which are being worked generally in this territory? A. Yes sir. Q. I wish to question you first as to the rates that prevail and the method in which they are made, from northern and eastern cities to Mobile? A. The rates to Mobile are made in competi tion with the steamship lines, the steamship lines making their rates to Mobile or New Orleans from the north. Q. What are the lines? A. The Cromwell line, the Morgan line, and the Mobile & New York Steamship Company. Q. Where do those lines run? A. The Cromwell and Morgan lines run from New York to New Orleans. The Mobile & New York line runs between those ports. Q. Do the rates charged or made by those steamers generally control the rates to those places which other lines have to accept? A. Yes sir, they make the rates. We have to accept those rates or go out of that business entirely. Q. Will you illustrate that by giving the average figures of the present prevailing rates? A. The present figures to Mobile and New Orleans are from fifty to fifty-five cents on first class by steamer. The rail lines are charging seventy-five cents. Q. Are the rail lines able to maintain any better rates than the steamers? A. No sir, they cannot maintain any higher rates than the difference in insurance will compensate for, and occasionally the difference in time. Q. But generally the rates are controlled entirely by the steamship lines? Q. Do the steamship lines maintain the rates? A. No sir; I have never known them to maintain a tariff for any period of time. A. Generally they are entirely controlled by | is made by measurement. That is the history the steamship lines. of local classification. On through classification we have an amount which I say we arriveat by assimilating. To that we add the rates authorized by the Georgia Commission from Savannah to Augusta, and that is the total which we have had to enforce for some years. Then for Macon we add the rate the Georgia Commission authorize to be used for Macon and Brunswick, or Macon and Savannah, and Q. And generally the rates by those steam- that makes the Macon total as we have it now ers are not thoroughly maintained? in force. To Atlanta the same principle is used. Q. Does our position enable you to know when rates are maintained and when rates are being cut? A. Yes sir. A. No sir. Q. What are the first competitive points approached in coming back from Mobile? A. The first points are Montgomery and Selma. Q. How are the rates there made and main tained? A. They are water rates made by adding the steamship rate to the rail rate. The rail line makes only a sufficiently higher rate to compensate for insurance and the difference in time. Q. Can you illustrate by figures what are the ordinary prevailing rates? A. The lowest rate we had to Montgomery and Selma last week, quoted by the steamship agents, was seventy cents on first class goods. Q. That is from New York? A. From New York, by way of Mobile. Q. Are the railroads able to maintain any higher rates? A. Only sufficiently higher to compensate for the cost of insurance and loss of time. Q. About what rates would they make for first class, as an average? A. The railroads cannot under that basis maintain a rate higher than from ninety cents to a dollar, if that. Q. Coming on in this direction how are the rates made to competitive points in Georgia, such as Atlanta, Macon and Columbus? Q. In short, the first thing in the rate is the through rate from New York to the coast; Charleston or Savannah? A. Yes sir; that is the first element. Q. Made by the Ocean Transportation Companies? A. Yes sir. Q. To that, then, is added in the case of Georgia the rates of the Georgia Railroad Commission? A. To that is added the rates of the Georgia Railroad Commission to those points. Q. The rates being made, will you state for illustration what are the prevailing first class rates to the principal interior points in Georgia? A. Take Atlanta. We are charging from New York to Atlanta $1.14. The steamship proportion, under the tariff which they have been using, would produce 45 cents from New York to Savannah. The rate authorized by the Georgia Commission from Savannah or Brunswick to Atlanta is 69 cents-a total of $1.14. To Macon it is 45 cents for the steamships. Assuming their local to be 64 cents, the total is $1.09, the present rate. To Au gusta the steamship rate is 45, and I think the local rate is 51; total, 96. Those are made on the exact combination. Q. Are those rates higher or lower than they were before the Commission was appointed in Georgia? A. Those rates, as well as I can remember, are about the same as we had in force. The steamship rates have been reduced in that time, and they are probably lower. I think the steamship service has been very much improved in the last ten or twelve years, and their rates have been very considerably reduced. Q. Those rates were fixed before there was a Commission. They were fixed by competition at these points in the first instance? A. Yes sir. Q. And since then by the Commission? Q. Referring to the steamer lines that run to New Orleans and Mobile, as well as those to the other points: they are entirely water lines not run in connection with any railroad? A. The rates to Augusta, Macon, Atlanta and Columbus are made from exactly the same A. They are purely water lines. I do not basis; that is, we take the steamship lines run- know of any ownership of railroads or connecning from New York to Charleston, Savannah tion with railroads, except that they naturally or Brunswick, and we assimilate by classifica--the New Orleans lines give bills of lading tion as nearly as possible to our classification, in order to name a through rate upon the article to be transported. That then is regarded as their local. An approximate classification through to interior points in connection with railroads, and the Mobile line the same. There is no connection between them that I know of, except a mere traffic arrangement. |