ent lines, and repeated and protracted negotiations, in which concessions were necessary to arrive at an adjustment, finally culminating in the creation of a board or tribunal in which all the lines were represented for the settlement of disputes and the mainte nance of peace and stability. The history of these contentions and their effects upon the roads and upon business is one of the most interesting chapters in the record of railroad development in this country. Beginning with eager rivalry and each line making rates independently and always with the view of securing the largest possible amount of business for itself, the differences to Baltimore and Philadelphia against New York were so great that wars were inevitable, and after most serious losses had been sustained and transportation demoralized, self-preservation, as well as the general public interests, required that destructive hostilities should cease and agreements be brought about on some basis of common justice and comparative equity. After several unsuccessful experiments the present basis of rates to the seaboard cities was established. FOR IF RATES FACT TO BE CON While by these adjustments the rate from Chicago to New York forms the basis with relation to which the whole system NECESSITY is arranged, that rate is in fact the one accepted by the OTHER CHANGES shortest line, which is the line by the Pennsylvania road ARE CHANGED A and its connections, and the other lines must conform SIDERED. to it in order to share in the business. It thus results that all the lines to New York carry at the same rates; and by an extension of the same principle all lines to Boston carry at the same Boston rates. The seaboard rates, are, therefore, all parts of a large and complicated system, and their relations and inter-relations are such that any material change in one rate involves numerous other changes. It was stated in the testimony that a reduction of the east-bound Boston local rate to the level of the New York tariff would require corresponding changes at several thousand other points in New England and at the west, and that the New England towns not on the direct line of the Boston and Albany road, but reached by its connections and now sharing the Boston rates, might lose their present advantages. The necessity for other changes in respect to related rates is not in itself an adequate reason for declining to correct any specific rate if it is in fact wrong, but when other changes would follow which might be injurious to other localities they are proper to be considered with reference to the general effect that might be produced by the proposed change, especially when a reasonable doubt of its propriety exists. OF 1882 ΤΟ FIX In 1882, when substantially the present differences in rates to the several Atlantic ports were in force, and shortly COMMISSION after a fierce war had existed, a disinterested commis- RATES - BOSTON sion of three gentlemen was chosen by the different SENTED. roads to consider and arbitrate the differential rates to the NOT REPRE principal seaboard points. After taking much testimony and giving ample consideration to the subject the commission made an elaborate report, discussing at length the different principles urged as foundations for the differentials, viz., distance or mileage, cost of service, and competition, concluding that competition must be regarded as the only practicable principle on which the differences could be fairly adjusted, and that no reason appeared for changing the differences then existing. It is proper to say that Boston was not represented upon the hearings before that commission, and the Boston differentials were not, therefore, directly involved, although the principles discussed applied equally to Boston with the other points. BUSINESS INTER- The preceding discussion has been chiefly limited to the relation of the carriers to the transportation in question. The complaint is against the carriers and they only have appeared. NEW The business interests of New York have not been CONSIDERA heard; but a question of this nature has broader aspects than the interests and duties of the railroad carriers. The business interests of the city of New York are entitled to fair consideration aud those interests should not be disregarded in passing upon transportation questions in which that city has large TION. concern. NATURAL VANTAGES AD- NEW YORK NOT ΤΟ The geographical situation of New York, its unrivalled harbor, with many miles of available water front and wharves, its vast concentration and variety of business, its greatly superior ocean service, its location as the terminus of NEU water transportation from the west and of many great competing railroad lines, its capacity for storage and its terminal facilities, its acknowledged commercial pre-eminence, give undoubted advantages to that city, partly natural and partly the result of enterprise and State expenditure, to which it is justly and equitably entitled and which it would be an indefensible wrong to attempt to take away or neutralize. No invidious comparison with any other city is intended, but undeniable facts cannot be ignored when a question of rights between competing localities is under consideration. In view of the relative situation, competing transportation facilities, and natural and commercial advantages of the two cities, it would seem unnatural and repugnant to equity that the carriers delivering property to them, respectively, should be compelled to make to both an equality of rates. CONCLUSION OF The conclusion of the commission is that the petitioners have not, upon any legitimate grounds of rate-making, maintained their application for equality of rates with New York for THE COMMISSION. east-bound local shipments to Boston, and that the existing rates, of which complaint is made, have not been shown to be unjust or unreasonable in themselves or relatively, and the petition ers have not shown unjust discrimination against Boston and in favor of New York by reason of those rates. The several complaints must, therefore, be dismissed. WALKER and MORRISON, Commissioners.-Agreeing in general with the foregoing opinion, and concurring in the re- DISSENSION sult, we are unwilling to be considered as assenting to FROM VIEWS EXthe views above expressed in respect to the use of an CERNING "arbitrary" in fixing the Boston rate. PRESSED TRARIES." CON46 ARBI It appears from the agreed statement of facts that "the extra charge of 10 cents per hundred pounds in the case of the first two classes, and of 5 cents per hundred in the other classes, of merchandise for transportation from Chicago to Boston over the charges for the transportation of the same merchandise from Chicago to New York is an extra fixed charge or arbitrary' which has for many years been added to the New York rate in fixing the Boston rate, without reference to what the rate to New York might be; so that, for illustration, when in past times the through rate for the transportation of flour and grain from Chicago to New York was 50 cents, and again, when it was only 15 cents, the through rate toBoston for the same class of goods at the same time was in each case just 5 cents more-i.e., 55 cents and 20 cents, respectively. " An arbitrary of 5 cents per hundred is 10 per cent of a 50-cent rate, and 20 per cent of a 25-cent rate. The same proof which might show that this arbitrary was just when the New York sixthclass rate was 50 cents would demonstrate that it is unjust now. No facts have been shown which would justify a doubled disparity at one time as compared with another. It further appears that the Chicago arbitraries of 10 cents on the two upper classes and 5 cents upon the remainder are enforced on business consigned to Boston from all points west of Buffalo, while at Buffalo the amount of the addition is summarily reduced one-half. The propriety of somewhat higher rates from the west to Boston than to New York cannot properly be questioned, but the method pursued by the carriers in ascertaining the amount of difference is crude and unsatisfactory. The result is well named an "arbitrary. The difference originally established seems to have been, at the time, an advance of about 10 per cent in the rates to Boston over the rates to New York, both from Chicago and from Buffalo. The facts fairly warranted a difference represented by that relative proportion, and it is hard to find substantial reasons for any greater distinction than that. No subsequent events have occurred which are claimed to have changed the situation to the prejudice of Bos The proofs, however, fail to show the precise class rates which were in force at the time when the arbitrary was adopted. An attempt was then made to ascertain a just measure of dis parity from natural or other causes, and to apply the same to rates which were expected to fluctuate in the future. A percentage basis would have been and would now be a much more satisfactory and trustworthy method than the one which was adopted. Such a basis is easy of calculation; it could be applied without difficulty and with apparent justice at Chicago and all other trunk-line west ern points, from which the rate to New York is now a stated percentage of the rate from Chicago to New York; and it would in great measure efface the elements of injustice which the complainants perceive in the workings of the present system. INDEX. NOTE -The mode of citing the American and English Railroad Cases is as The index contains references to the decisions and to the notes. References ACTION. Carrier. A shipper who has a judgment rendered against him owing to Fires. Case and not trespass is the proper remedy at common law for AGENTS. See OFFICERS AND AGENTS. ANNOTATIONS. Bridge. Appropriation of county bridge by street railway. Right of county to Bill of Lading. Delivery of goods without requiring production of. 508. Liability of railroad company on fraudulent bills issued by its agents. Nature of, symbol of property. 514. Carriers. See RATES. Action against railroad as. Proof showing goods destroyed while in its Connecting line: delivery to, without authority. Wrongful delivery Connecting lines: liability of carrier for. 467. Connecting line: receipt by, that goods were received in good order 32 A. & E. R. Cas.-41 |