No. 709.

E. D. HEWINS

V.

THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.

Decided April 11, 1904.

Defendant has numerous through daily trains between New York and Boston on which the through parlor car fare is one dollar, on all trains from intermediate points the parlor car fare is 50 or 75 cents according to distance, and on three trains the parlor car rate is one dollar to any intermediate point. Complaint is made that the charge of one dollar to intermediate points constitutes unlawful discrimination. Held: 1. That it is not a violation of law to charge more in one direction on certain trains than is charged in another direction on all trains between the same points. 2. That defendant furnishes adequate parlor car accommodations at the lower rates for local and shortdistance passengers, and the discrimination against such passengers by reason of the dollar rate to intermediate points on three of defendant's trains is not undue or unreasonable.

E. D. Hewins for complainant in person.

F. A. Farnham for defendant.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

KNAPP, Chairman:

The unlawful discrimination alleged in this case is based upon the rates charged by defendant for parlor car seats on certain of its passenger trains, as hereinafter explained. The facts are

wholly undisputed and the question presented appears from the following statement:

The complainant is a dealer in cotton goods in the city of Boston, and in the course of his business has frequent occasion to travel upon defendant's road.

The defendant is a common carrier by railroad between New York and Boston and intermediate points. Passengers are carried over its lines in ordinary coaches and in parlor cars. The passenger traffic on this road is large and numerous trains are operated.

Between New York and New Haven all trains pass over the same line. Between New Haven and Boston there are two lines; one passing through New London and Providence, known as the Shore Line; and. one passing through Hartford and Springfield, known as the Springfield Line. The Springfield Line is operated in connection with the Boston & Albany road between Springfield and Boston. The defendant operates its own parlor cars and fixes the rates for their use on its own lines. The parlor cars on the Springfield Line appear to be owned partly by defendant and partly by the Pullman Company, but the defendant admits responsibility, as we understand, for the parlor car rates on this line.

Between New York and Boston there are two limited trains daily, on which extra fare is charged for extra accommodations, and also certain trains carrying sleeping cars, about which no question is made in this proceeding.

Excluding these limited and sleeping car trains, there appear to be eleven trains or more out of New York carrying parlor cars to New Haven, of which ten go through to Boston by one line or the other. Going the other way there are ten trains carrying parlor cars through from Boston to New York and eleven carrying parlor cars from New Haven to New York.

On all these trains the through parlor car rate in either direction is one dollar; and on all of them the rate from intermediate points to either Boston or New York is 50 cents or 75 cents according to distance. On three trains the parlor car rate is one dollar to any intermediate point. These are the trains leaving New York and Boston at 12 o'clock м., and 4 o'clock P. M. by

the Springfield Line, and leaving both places at 3 o'clock P. M. by the Shore Line. When this complaint was filed, August 4, 1903, the dollar rate was charged to intermediate points on the Shore Line train leaving New York and Boston at 5 o'clock P. M., but the lower rates to intermediate points are now allowed on that train. On other trains carrying parlor cars, aside from the three just mentioned, the dollar rate is charged only for a through seat between New York and Boston, the charge to intermediate points being fifty cents or seventy-five cents according to distance. In other words, the parlor car rate from intermediate points to the terminals is never more than fifty cents or seventy-five cents, according to distance, while on the three trains in question the parlor car rate from the terminals to intermediate points is one dollar, the same as the through rate. This is the discrimination of which complaint is made.

Parlor cars were originally put in service to accommodate through or long-distance travel between Boston and New York by furnishing easier and more comfortable seats. At first there was little demand for parlor cars, but the business has developed to quite large proportions and there is now an extensive demand for such cars, especially by passengers traveling through between the terminals above named.

The defendant justifies the through rate of one dollar to intermediate points on the three trains mentioned by reason of the following facts: In the first place, the number of persons taking parlor cars to or from intermediate points is small in comparison with the total number of parlor car passengers. For example, the average number of local parlor car passengers on the train leaving New York at 3 p. m. is only about ten per cent of the whole number of passengers using parlor car accommodations on that train. Therefore, as the parlor cars are patronized chiefly by long-distance travelers and the parlor car service primarily maintained for their benefit, it is necessary on some trains to guard against filling up the parlor cars at the terminals with local or short-distance travelers, and thus leaving insufficient accommodations for through or long-distance passengers. It is said that all or nearly all the parlor car seats on these trains are frequently required for the use of through travelers,

and that such travelers would often be deprived of desired accommodations if seats were sold at lower rates to intermediate points. For this reason, the defendant says, the dollar rate is charged to intermediate points on four (now three) trains which are operated largely for through travel, and on which as a rule the entire parlor car space is needed for through passengers.

The further statement is made that it is not feasible to increase the parlor cars on the trains in question, because the number now used is as great as can be hauled at the high rate of speed maintained by those trains. Moreover, at both New York and Boston the yards where trains are made up are at considerable distances from the passenger stations, while the physical conditions at those stations are such that additional cars cannot be put in after the trains have been placed at the passenger platforms. As a practical matter, it is insisted, the trains must be made up with reference to their scheduled time and the usual number of passengers carried, and that an increase of parlor car accommodations cannot be provided. In other words, the dollar rate is charged on these trains to all points not for the purpose of added revenue but in the interest of through passengers who have the greatest need of parlor car accommodations. The evidence sustains defendant's contention in this regard and the facts are found accordingly.

We further find that the number of trains and parlor cars on which the lower parlor car rates to intermediate points are allowed, together with the hours at which such trains leave the respective terminals and arrive at intermediate stations, are reasonably sufficient for the accommodation of the public. Taking all the circumstances into account, including due provision for through passengers, it is not perceived that any real hardship or injustice results from the dollar charge to all points on the three trains in question.

The conclusion follows so plainly from the facts found in this case that argument is unnecessary. It is not a violation of law to charge more in one direction on certain trains than is charged in the other direction on all trains between the same points. Macloon v. Poston & M. R. R. Co. et al. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 642.

85.

Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 6 I. C. C. Rep..

The defendant furnishes adequate parlor car accommodations at the lower rates for local and short-distance passengers, and the discrimination against such passengers by reason of the dollar rate to intermediate points on three of defendant's trains is not undue or unreasonable. In the interest of through passengers the defendant had the right to make the regulation in question. In the case of Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 44 L. ed. 868, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, after discussing several cases called to its attention, the Supreme Court said:

"With no disposition whatever to vary or qualify the cases above cited, neither the conclusions of the court nor the tenor of the opinions are opposed to the principle we hold to in this case, that, after all local conditions have been adequately met, railways have the legal right to adopt special provisions for through traffic

We are of the opinion that no violation of the Act has been shown and that the complaint should be dismissed.

10 I. C. C. REP.-15.