Boston & Albany could say: We are in competition with the Fitchburg. Or the Erie could say: We are in competition with the New York Central. And so every one of these corpora tions could let the other one out by the shuffling of the cards. It would be somewhat after the plan adopted some time ago by the banks in this State, by which the specie used to be circulated when the bank examiner came around. One bank would present its specie to the examiner, who would count it and certify that it was all right, and the specie would at once be hurried off to the next bank to be presented to the examiner as its specie, and so on until it had gone all the rounds. Every railroad competes with each other; and if the fact of competition is to be an element that is to control this question, there is not a railroad in the United States which reaches out of its own State (that is probably too strong a statement) but there are not ten roads in the country that reach out of their own State. So that they could get out one after another, and all make great prices for short distances and small prices for longer dis tances at the expense of the shippers of freight, and the public. This honorable body will see the force of that, and you are not going to let these corporations, whom you were created to bring to some sense of justice and fairness among men in this country, manage to evade this law by playing off against each other and getting beyond the control of this Act in that way. It is not a special and peculiar circumstance and condition; it is a universal circumstance and condition in all these long haul cases, and therefore it is not one of the ideas that could have been in the minds of the law makers when they said that in peculiar and special circumstances and conditions you might be compelled to relieve a railway for a limited or unlimited time from the operation of sec tion 4. Long Haul Rates for Short Distances Grossly Unjust. One word more and I am done. Upon the evidence as it stands in this case, even if these short haul rates were put down to the long haul figures, then the short haul rates would still be grossly unreasonable in fact. I say it is proved to be so by the testimony. All the facts that are put in evidence here, as to how these operations are carried on and what they get for the work they do, tend to establish the force of the statement. Governor Smith told you the cost of carrying freight per ton per mile is, on an average, four mills per ton per mile over the line complained of, taking the fast and slow trains together. He has told you about the car service, what that is and how profitable it is to the company owning the cars. The stock of the company whose cars carry this very freight, and have carried it for fifteen years pays dividends from ten down to four per cent and on a watered capital at that. Governor Smith also tells you that they make money in this long haul business, and I pre sume he has told, as everybody should, all that will be of benefit to his case, although he has not told you how much they in fact make out of the business. If there is a profit in carrying a car load of corn from Detroit, or a car load of hay or any other commodity from the Canada line to the line of New Hampshire, or to Boston, or vice versa, at a rate of less than 30 cents per 100 pounds, or whatever it may be, I do not pretend to get the fractions, but an enormously less rate than is charged for the short distance, then the profits for doing that same kind of work, over the same line at the same time of year, at once and a half or double the charge, must be enormously and unreasonably large. This is demonstrable, when you look at these statements made here as to the rates and take the elements of the cost and the profit on the car service. When you find the same kind of work being done over the same line under the same circumstances, at half the rate and paying the road a profit, I insist upon it, it is made out as fully as it ever can be made out in such cases as this at any time. When it is demonstrated that there is a profit in the lower rate-the through rate-it is demonstrated that the greater rate for the lesser distance is grossly unjust. And even if the short haul rate should be brought down to the longer haul rate it would still be grossly unjust in proportion to the expense of doing the business. It is not to be wondered at that the profits of the farmer in Vermont, Ohio, Illinois, or anywhere else, are small. It is not to be wondered at that they make no profits at all; their profits are apparently somewhere else. So I say that the short haul rates should at least be brought down to the basis of charge for the longer haul. That is what I insisted upon last night, and I should have been willing, as I stated at that time, in the hope of finishing this matter up for the time being, to have had this matter stand upon the rates being brought down to that basis and let the matter stop there, with liberty, after a reasonable trial, to apply to the Commission for relief. But we could fore having to go through the whole case, I innot make any arrangement about it and there sist that on the evidence in this case what I have said and claimed as to the intrinsic un reasonableness of these rates is true, and that they would still be unreasonable, even if brought down to the long haul minimum. The Proposition. I think that is all it is desirable to say for the merits of this case. I only wish to say in closing, that we thank you, as the other gentlemen have done, for your patience in bearing with our somewhat desultory management of the case, and with what I and my colleague have said; I say "colleague." as we have no official relations with the distinguished gentle man who represents the Boston & Albany Railroad Company. In bringing this application we are not actuated by any spirit of hostility to these roads or any others. Quite the reverse. The railway service of the United States is just as important to its welfare and prosperity as any other one of its social enterprises and institutions. But the fact that it is a very neces sary element of our prosperity, and ought to be encouraged, furnishes no ground for its being granted unlimited and unjust license to oppress anybody else. That is the proposition. REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. | 3. A desire to obtain a construction of 1. Where, in a proceeding against several connecting railroad companies for charging more for a short than for the long haul, one of the companies claims that its only participation in the alleged offense consisted in its sharing in the low charges on the 5. long haul, which were not in themselves alleged to be illegal, the complaint should not be dismissed as against such company, where its interest and the liability of the low rates on long haul traffic to be affected by changes made in the higher rates on short haul traffic is so great that in case such company had not been made a party, and should ask to be made a party, it would be proper to so order. 2. Where, in a proceeding by one railroad company (here, the Boston & Albany R. R. Co.) against other companies, for charging more for a short than for the long haul, it appears that the rates alleged to be illegal are local rates; that the petitioner does not pay or participate in paying them; that they are not competitive rates to those 7. imposed on the petitioner's road; and there is no allegation that such rates are excessive or unjust, and the sole grievance of the petitioner is that the defendant companies accept through traffic at lower rates than are made by the petitioner and its connections, such petitioner has no standing to maintain the proceeding. Note. Following is the letter referred to on page 535 at line 20, 2d column, as in evidence: New York, April 27, 1876. Com. Vanderbilt, President. W. H. Vanderbilt, Esq., Vice Pres't. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Gentlemen Believing that the existing difficulties in regard to the transportation of east bound traffic are not understood as thoroughly as they should be, and that these differences should be adjusted on a basis of equity to all interests, we have, through telegraphic correspondence, requested Mr. Hickson of the Grand Trunk Line, and Gov. Smith of the Vt. Central, to meet us in New York and talk the subject over, to see whether we could not arrive at Some satisfactory basis of adjustment. We believe that your shorter line between the West and New England ought to make a reasonable concession to the Grand Trunk route, which embraces that line, the Vt. Central, and other connections, owing to its location and climate, and other matters incident to it as a through route. In order to protect and promote the interests of the various roads of the country as well as the best interests of the public, we trust you may find it to your interest to agree, if it can be arranged, to allow the Grand Trunk route the following scale of differences on east bound traffic to competitive points in New England, which are much less than those heretofore existing, and which we deem under the circumstances to be reasonable. On live stock 7c; on cut meats and perishable property 6c; on first and second class, of which there is but a very limited quantity, 4c. The Grand Trunk to carry third and fourth class, 8. the Interstate Commerce Act is not sufficient to support such proceeding. The right to make greater charges for short than for long hauls is exceptional and depends in every case upon the peculiar circumstances and conditions; and a ruling in reference thereto in the case of one carrier would not be applicable to another carrier differently circumstanced. It is not held, however, that a complainant must necessarily have a pecuniary interest in order to entitle him to be heard; and it seems, under the provisions of the Act, that when an infraction of the Act would constitute a public grievance, it may be the duty of the Commission to investigate it, when brought to its attention by a responsible party in a duly authenticated form. 6. Held, that the persons composing the Vermont State Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry had such an interest that it was proper that they, as an association, should raise the question as to the justice of the high rates complained of by them, and that the proceeding was maintainable upon their petition. If several railroad companies join in making the joint tariff which constitutes the lesser charge on the longer haul, while one or more of their number makes the greater charge on the shorter haul, the case is within the fourth section of the Act; and those who make such greater charge are called upon to justify it. By the word "line" in the Act, a physical line is meant, not a business ar which embraces 90 per cent of the entire traffic at equal rates as fixed from time to time. The matter of west bound rates from New England to remain as adjusted between your lines and the lines of the Grand Trunk route. Looking over the whole ground it seems to us that if we can prevail on Mr. Hickson to agree to this schedule, you should agrec, as well for your own interests as those of all the other lines in the country, to make this adjustment: and if it is made that the Grand Trunk route should then become one of the eastern trunk lines, and be a part of the organization for making and adjusting rates and classifications from time to time, on the general basis that has prevailed among the four trunk lines during the past year. By adopting this policy its results must be to protect large amounts of property, owned in this and other countries, from a destruction that we think under the circumstances is not warranted; and we believe that the adjustment of this whole matter rests entirely with you. The pending consequences, are in our opinion so Thos. A. Scott, Prest. Penn. R. R. Jno. King, Vice-president B. & O. R. R. Co. rangement; and one piece of road may | same-no higher and no lower than to any any intermediate point on the same line in the same direction-your petitioner would have no reason to complain." be part of several lines. 9. Through business over the defendant companies' roads was done by the National Despatch Line (a fast freight line, neither a corporation nor an association of persons, but a name under which business was done), the several roads paying milage for the cars used, furnished to such line by a car company, and the earnings of such line being divided among the roads in agreed proportions. The tariff for the long haul traffic inquestion was made by the manager of the Despatch Line, who was the agent for all the roads over which it did business, and was acquiesced in by them. Held, that the defendant companies were responsible for the long haul rates. 10. Held, that such peculiar facts are not found to exist as will justify the greater charge over the shorter line by the Central Vermont roads. Cooley, Chairman: On the same day the complainant presented another petition representing that "the Boston & Lowell Railroad Company, a Massachusetts corporation; the Concord Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Northern Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Central Vermont Railroad Company, a Vermont corporation; and the Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company, a New York corporation, have made an arrangement by which the Steamship Company operated by the Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railroad Company has issued a tariff from Boston to lake ports in the United States at a less rate than is charged at the same time from Boston to Ogdensburgh and other points on the same line at a shorter distance from Boston in the same direction. The rates are as follows: 41-36-29-20-17-14 for the six classes of freight respectively. From Boston to- 44-39-31-23-19-16 for the six classes respectively, and from Boston to Ogdensburgh, 60-50-4530-25-17 for the six classes of freight respectively. This line via Ogdensburgh comes into competition with the Boston & Albany Railroad Company, and its connections at Cleveland, Detroit, Port Huron, Milwaukee, Chicago and other western points. On May 24, 1987, the Boston & Albany Railroad Company presented its petition stating "That the Boston & Lowell Railroad Company, a Massachusetts corporation; the Concord Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Northern Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Central Vermont Railroad Company, a Vermont corporation, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, established by the laws of Canada, have issued schedules of joint rates under the name of the National Despatch Line, and under these schedules the rates from Boston to De- The grievance which the Boston & Albany troit, Michigan, are: 51-45-35-24-20-18 for Railroad Company and its connections have is the six classes of freight, respectively; and to that the line via Ögdensburgh makes rates to Montreal, Canada, 45-40-30-23-20-18 for the the above places less than the Boston & Albasix classes of freight, respectively; while at ny Railroad Company and its connections the same time the Boston & Lowell, Concord, make to the same points, while at the same Northern & Central Vermont Railroad Com-time the above named roads, viz.: the Boston panies, a part of the roads included in the & Lowell, Concord, Northern, Central VerNational Despatch Line, have made and main-mont, Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain Railtained rates from Boston to St. Albans, Ver- road Companies maintain higher rates to Og. mont, a station on the Central Vermont Rail road, a less distance from Boston than either Detroit or Montreal, in the same direction over the same line as follows: 60-50-40-27-24 -17 for the six classes of freight, respectively. "The National Despatch Line comes into competition with the Boston & Albany Railroad Company and its connections at Detroit and other western points. densburgh and other intermediate points; that is, higher rates for the short haul than for the long haul on the same line at the same time in the same direction; whereas, if the rates to Cleveland, Detroit, Port Huron, Milwaukee and Chicago were made the same, no higher and no lower than to intermediate points on the same line in the same direction, your petitioner would have no reason to complain." To these petitions the several defendants made answer, but it is deemed unnecessary to do more in this opinion than to give one in each case. "The grievance which this company and its connections have is that the National Despatch Line makes rates to Detroit and other points in the West less than the Boston & Albany Railroad Company and its connections make The answer of the Boston & Lowell Railroad to the same points; while at the same time a Company to the petition first above recited, certain combination of roads, including a part denies that the defendants "have issued joint of the roads in the National Despatch Line, rates under the name of the National Despatch viz.: the Boston & Lowell, Concord, Northern Company as therein averred; and further de & Central Vermont Railroad Companies, main-nies that the line of railroads, or the railroad tain higher rates to St. Albans and other in which established and maintains any joint termediate points-that is, higher rates for the rates, or any rates for the carriage of freight short haul than for the long haul on the same between Boston and St. Albans and interme. line in the same direction, on the five upper diate points, is the same line or railroad cor classes of freight; whereas, if the rates to De-poration as the line which establishes and troit and other western points were made the maintains the rates of freight between Boston "And this defendant denies that the joint tariff aforesaid constitutes an arrangement for a continuous carriage, within the meaning of the first section of the Interstate Commerce Law; but if it does, then it alleges that the joint tariff from Boston to St. Albans makes a wholly different line from the one made by the joint tariff of the National Despatch Line, within the meaning of the fourth section of said Law. and Detroit and other western points, as al-Johns, where there is competition with comleged in said petition; and further denies that plainant's line, are made under this tariff by the same carrier or line of railroads or this de- the National Despatch Line. fendant charge higher rates for a short haul than for a long haul over the same line in the same direction for the like kind of property in the manner set out in said petition; and further alleges that the transportation of freight between the points named in said petition has not been and is not under substantially similar circumstances and conditions within the true intent and meaning of the Act of Congress. "And this defendant further says that the Boston & Lowell Railroad, the Nashua & Lo- "And this defendant further says that the well, the Concord, the Northern and the Cen- rates from Boston and intermediate points to tral Vermont Railroads are connecting railroads St. Albans are reasonable; that nobody along so far as trackage is concerned, from Boston, the line is dissatisfied with the rates made; Mass., to St. Albans, Vt. These roads are not that the Boston and Albany line is not a commanaged or controlled by each other, except petitor for traffic for west bound freight from that the Nashua & Lowell and the Northern are Boston or intermediate points to St. Albans, in fact operated by the Boston & Lowell; nor is and is in no way interested in the rates that there between them an arrangement for a con- are made thereto. It further says that the tinuous carriage or shipment of property over Central Vermont road runs through a sparsely the same, although it is true that they some-settled country that the local traffic thereon times make joint tariffs of rates between Bos ton and St. Albans, aforesaid, and interchange cars. At the time of filing the petitioners' complaint the rate fixed by said joint tariff from Boston to St. Albans was and is as stated in said petition. "These defendants further say that the National Despatch Line, referred to in the said petition, is a line of cars running from Boston, Mass., to all large points in Canada and in the Western States, west of St. Johns in Canada, via the Grand Trunk line. They consist of 3,750 freight cars, marked National Despatch Line, and they are owned as follows: "The National Car Company, a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of Vermont, owns 3,000 of said cars. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, owns 700, and the Chicago. Pekin, & South Western Railroad owns 50. The roads over which the National Despatch Line sends freight, and which use the cars, are as follows: "Boston and Lowell (and others are enumerated, including some whose lines extend beyond the Mississippi). is small, and that it was constructed at a great expense through an uneven country with high grades; that the road has been foreclosed and reorganized, and the original capital put into the construction of the same has been lost; that if said road was compelled to depend on local traffic, it could not pay its expenses and interest on its bonded debt, to say nothing of the stocks of the road as it has been reorganized. And this defendant further says that the additional expense of doing through traffic as compared with local traffic is small in degree; that its road is the same whether the traffic is local and small or large by reason of through business; that the profit which it makes out of the through business is quite as important to it as the profit on the local business, by reason of the volume of the through traffic as compared with the local traffic; that the volume of business from Boston to St. Albans is not one twentieth part of what it is to points beyond there, westward. That it has been to very large expense for terminal facilities, among other things, to accommodate such through traffic; and this expense amounts to more than $3,000.000. "And these defendants further say that the Central Vermont Road extends northerly from St. Albans to the state line, a distance of about ten miles; that it there connects with the Montreal and Vermont Junction Railroad, a Canada corporation, which extends about twentytwo miles northerly to St. Johns, in Canada, where it connects with the Grand Trunk Railroad, which extends through Canada to Windsor, opposite Detroit. It is over this line that the National Despatch cars principally run. "The National Despatch Line have their principal office in Boston, Mass. They solicit freight at Boston and other places in New England for transportation to all prominent points in Canada and the Western States west of St. Johns. They have agencies in Loston and other eastern points and in Chicago and other western points. They do not receive or solicit freight at Boston or other New England points, the destination of which is south of St. Johns, for west bound freight. They issue their own bills of lading; and they also issue and publish their tariff for transportation from New England points to points in the Western "And this defendant further says that the States and Canada west of St. Johns. They rate made by the National Despatch Line do not issue bills of lading for west bound from Boston to Montreal is, and was at the freight from New England points to points time of the filing of the petitioner's comsouth of St. John's, nor do they make a tariff nor profess to be carriers between those points in respect to west bound freight destined south of St. Johns. St. Albans, Vt., is South of St. Johns, and is not embraced in the tariff made by the National Despatch Line for west bound freight. The rates made to points west of St. plaint, the same as stated in said complaint, and for the following reasons: There are many competitors at Boston for traffic to Montreal; there are none for traffic to St. Albans. Boston traffic is taken by ocean steamers to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St. Johns, New Brunswick, and thence by Cana Iowa, Michigan and Virginia were well settled farming States in 1880, and the density of population in those States for that year is given as 29.3, 28.5 and 37.7, respectively, to the square mile. Vermont has shown a steady increase in her population since 1830, while in the States of New Hampshire and Maine a decrease took place from 1860 to 1870; in New Hampshire a decrease of 2.3 per cent, and in Maine a decrease of 0.2 per cent. b. The value in property in Vermont has also shown an increase since 1850. The assessed and true value of property in the State from 1850 to 1870 is shown by the following figures: 1850 1860 1870 Assessed Value. $ 76,364,289 Census, estimates that the increase of valustion due thereto was 20 per cent. With these allowances the value of property in the State shows on the whole a decided increase. c. Manufactures have also increased steadily in Vermont. The value of manufactured prod ucts in Vermont for the years 1850, 1860, 1870 and 1880, is as follows: 1850 1870 1880 $ 8,570,920 ($27,356,909.) Allowing 15 per cent as the extra increase in 1870 on account of the state of the currency in that year, the figures for that year would stand $27,356,909, showing an increase of True Value. nearly 75 per cent between 1850 and 1860, of $92,205,049 nearly 100 per cent between 1860 and 1870, 122,477,170 and of about 15 per cent between 1870 and 235,349,553 1880. For the year 1880 only the assessed value is given by the United States Census Reports, and this was $86,806,775. The apparent decrease from 1870, as well as the extraordinary increase in 1870 from 1860, was partly due to the inflated prices current in 1870. Gold was at an average premium of 25.3 per cent, and Superintendent Walker, of the United States Year. 1850 1860 1870 1880 d. The condition of agriculture in Vermont also shows a marked improvement since 1850. The number of farms, the number of acres of improved land, the value of farm lands and the value of improvements and machinery used thereon for the years 1850, 1860, 1870 and 1880, is shown by the following table: Making the same allowance for the state of the money market in 1870 as has been made above, a marked and almost steady increase is shown. The number of persons engaged in agriculture in Vermont in 1880 was as follows: Total persons engaged, 55,251, males, 55,037; females, 214. Ages: 10 to 15-male, 1,670; female, 10; 16 to 59-male, 44,356; female, 160; 60 and over -male, 24,249; female, 883. (The membership of the Vermont State Grange is about 2,000, composed of both male and female members.) Vermont New Hampshire Iowa The average size of the farms in six States in 1880 was as follows: Vermont, 137 acres; New Hampshire, 116; Maine, 102; New York, 99; Michigan, 90; Iowa, 134. The productiveness of Vermont farms com pares favorably with that of the farms of other States. Following is given the number of acres of improved land in 1879, in the States of Ver mont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa; the value of the farm products of each of these States in the same year, and the average value of products per acre: Number of Acres of 3,286,461 2,308,112 8,484,908 19,866,541 |