Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

That the lesser charge on the longer haul is to encourage manufactures, etc., does not justify a greater charge for the lesser distance.-In re Louisville & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 16, 278, 1 I. C. C. R. 31.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The giving of a lower rate from New Orleans to Atlanta, a competitive point, than to non-competitive points along the same line and at a less distance from New Orleans is not necessarily a violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 4, relative to rates for long and short hauls, and it is not material that competition might be established at the non-competitive point.Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 190 U. S. 273, 23 Sup. Ct. R (U.S.) 687.

Where a violation of the long and short haul section of the Interstate Commerce Act is complained of, competition which is controlling on traffic and rates produces of itself a dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions, and the carrier has a right of his own motion to take it into account in fixing rates to the competitive point.- East Tenn. V. & G. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 181 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 516, revg. s. c. 99 Fed. 52.

Competition, even between carriers subject to the same act, creates dissimilar circumstances.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Clyde Ss. Co., 181 U. S. 29, 21 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 512.

Competition is one of the most obvious and effective conditions which render the circumstances of a long and short haul so substantially dissimilar as to warrant a less charge for the greater distance; and the framers of the Interstate Commerce Act must have intended that it should be so considered.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45, affg. s. c. 74 Fed. 715, 69 Fed. 227.

Competition between rival routes is a factor to be considered in applying the long and short haul section of the Interstate Commerce Act. The mere fact of competition, no matter what its character and extent, does not necessarily relieve the carrier from the operation of the section, but competition is to be considered in determining what are substantially similar circumstances and conditions."- Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45, affg. s. c. 74 Fed. 715, 69 Fed. 227.

[ocr errors]

The court was asked to enforce an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission commanding the defendants to cease charging more for goods carried from Atlantic ports to Piedmont, Ala., than was charged from the same points to Anniston, Ala., a shorter distance. The evidence, according to the Commission, showed that the rates to Piedmont were unreasonable and unjust as compared with the rates to Anniston,

in that they gave to the latter city an undue preference and advantage, and subjected the former to an undue prejudice and disadvantage, in territory in which they meet in active competition. The Commission found the rates to Piedmont not excessive or unreasonable in themselves. It also excluded evidence offered by the defendant carriers of competition tending to justify such disparity in rates, the exclusion being on the ground that competition between carriers equally subject to the Interstate Commerce Act is immaterial.— Held, that the evidence should have been considered, for if the competition was actual and effectual, it was a justification of the disparity in rates, because the "conditions and circumstances" thereby became "substantially dissimilar."- Interst. Com. Commission v. So. R. Co., 105 Fed. 703.

Competition is a circumstance which may make the conditions under which a long and short haul is performed substantially dissimilar.Interst. Com. Commission v. So. R. Co., 105 Fed. 703; Interst. Com. Commission v. Western R. Co., 93 Fed. 83, affg. s. c. 88 Fed. 186.

The duty to take competition into consideration in construing Interst. Com. Act, § 4, is not affected by the fact that the competition is between carriers subject to that Act.- Interst. Com. Commission v. So. R. Co., 105 Fed. 703.

The charging of a greater rate for a shorter than for a longer haul is not unlawful under Interst. Com. Act, § 4, when the rate for the shorter distance is not itself excessive, and the more distant point is a large traffic center, where both water and rail competition is keen; as such facts constitute a dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions within the meaning of the Act.- Brewer v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 84 Fed. 258.

To justify a greater charge for a shorter distance because of water competition, the transportation as to which such competition exists must be of freight consigned to the longer distance point, which if not carried by the road complained of, would reach that point by water transportation.- Behlmer v. L. & N. R. Co., 83 Fed. 898, revg. s. c. 71 Fed. 835; revd. on other grounds, 175 U. S. 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 209.

The public at large is greatly interested in competition and the favorable effect it has on prices, and for that reason the public seeks to keep open the larger markets of the country to all points of production and supply. Where traffic from a distance can compete with traffic nearer the market, the public is interested in having the greater distance traffic carried at rates which will enable it to compete with the traffic which is nearer the market. The Interstate Commerce Act will be interpreted, in a broad and practical way, to facilitate such competition. Rigidly theoretical rules and purely mathematical calculations cannot be permitted to govern.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed.

[graphic]

Competition of market with market, as well as carrier with carrier, may be considered, in fixing rates.- Interst. Com. Commission v. C. N. 0. & T. P. R. Co., 56 Fed. 925.

Competition and "dissimilarity of circumstances" under Interst. Com. Act, § 4, discussed and analyzed.- Interst. Com. Commission v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 56 Fed. 925.

Competition between rival routes excuses a less charge for a longer haul.-Interst. Com. Commission v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 50 Fed. 295; appeal dismissed, 81 Fed. 1005, 149 U. S. 264, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 837.

Under a long and short haul section of a state law, the receiver appointed by a federal court was instructed "to charge no more for the transportation of goods than the maximum allowed by the Act, nor no more for a short haul than a long one in the same direction, except to and from points where the rate obtainable is affected by water transportation, in which case he may carry at as low a rate as the water-craft do, without reference to the length of the haul."- Ex parte Koehler, 23 Fed. 529.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Oregon statute recognizes no exception to its long and short haul rule, a railway corporation may charge less for a long haul than a short one in the same direction, where the rate for the long haul is caused by other lines of transportation competing for business at the point whence the long haul is made; and where the road of such corporation forms a part of a line of transportation consisting largely of water carriage between two principal points, the rate may be made so as to enable it to compete with another road that constitutes a part of another line of railway and water transportation between the same points.- Ex parte Koehler, 25 Fed. 73.

Where actual competition exists at the more distant point, which does not obtain at the intermediate or nearer point, and where such competition has actually produced at the more distant point the low rate which the carrier cannot control and must meet to obtain a share of the business, Interst. Com. Act, §§ 3, 6, do not prohibit the disparity in rates, so long as the low competitive rate is reasonable in itself.- Mayor of Wichita v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 534.

Since water competition affects all-rail rates from New York to the Pacific coast, an order requiring as low or lower rates from St. Louis to the coast as from New York, is not necessarily demanded by a showing that the distance is less and that duly graded rates were at one time in force.- Business Men's League v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 318.

Neither the absence nor presence of competition by carriers alone, nor the extent of its operation measured solely by their financial interests,

[graphic]

can be relied on to adjust rates. There may be effectual means foreign to local traffic conditions for curbing competition at one point and not at another.- Mayor of Tifton v. L. & N. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 160. The mere fact of competition at the longer distance point does not necessarily justify the lower charge for the longer distance.- Holdzkom v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 42.

Mere proof of the conditions of competition which led to a departure from the long and short haul rule, is not justification.- Danville v. So. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 409.

Even where it is shown that railway competition creates dissimilarity in conditions, the question remains whether the dissimilarity justifies so great a departure from the long and short haul rule.- Gustin v. Burl. & M. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 81.

Freely engaging in competition at one point while wholly or largely suppressing it at another, cannot justify a carrier in making a greater charge to the latter and nearer point.- Calloway v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 431.

The doctrine that competition between carriers may create dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions under Interst. Com. Act. § 4, cannot apply where such competition exists at both the longer and shorter distance points.- Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 224.

In a suit for violation of the long and short haul clause of the Kentucky Constitution, it is immaterial whether competition existed at the point to which the longer haul was made.- Hutchison v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 108 Ky 615, 22 Ky L. R. 361, 57 S. W. 251; rehearing denied, 22 Ky. L. R. 1871, 63 S. W. 33.

[32]

[ocr errors]

What competition is a justification.

The mere fact of railway competition does not necessarily relieve carriers from the restraints of Interst. Com. Act, §§ 3, 4, but only such competition as having due regard to the interests of the public, ought justly to have effect upon rates.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45, affg. s. c. 74 Fed. 715, 69 Fed. 227; Phillips Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. 93.

All competition is to be taken into consideration, if it possesses the attribute of producing a substantial and material effect on traffic and rate-making, and it is reversible error for the Interstate Commerce Commission to decline to consider it. Interst. Com. Commission v. So. R. Co., 105 Fed. 703.

To make water competition a justification for a departure from the long and short haul rule, it must be actual and must dictate the rate.

The mere existence of a water way which might afford an avenue for such transportation is not enough.— Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 224.

A substantial dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions at two points, through rail competition at one of the same is not established by mere proof that at one of the points there are a number of railway lines running to and through that city connecting with different parts of the country.- Board of Trade v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 1.

Where water competition is alleged to justify disparities in rates, the carrier must affirmatively show by proof which has more than the effect of presumption and which clearly establishes the fact, that such competition is a controlling factor in the transportation of traffic, important in amount, from the point in question.- James v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 45, 110, 274, 5 I. C. C. R. 612.

One transportation line cannot be said to meet the competition of another transportation line for the carrying trade of any particular locality, unless the latter line could and would perform the service alone if the former did not engage in it.- Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 798, 3 Inters. Com. R. 106, 213, 5 I. C. C. R. 546.

Rail competition over the Canadian Pacific and water competition around Cape Horn do not justify violations of the long and short haul rule in transportation from San Francisco to St. Paul, via Fargo, N. Dak. - Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 857, 5 I. C. C. R. 234.

Water competition must be actual, to justify a railroad in making a greater charge for a shorter distance.- San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 522, 3 Inters. Com. R. 138, 4 I. C. C. R. 104.

A mere situation on a navigable stream is not actual water competition, justifying a lesser charge to such point.- Harwell v. Columbus & W. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 494, 631, 1 I. C. C. R. 236.

Potential water competition does not justify a greater charge for a lesser than a longer distance.— Boston & A. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 291, 400, 500, 1 I. C. C. R. 158.

[blocks in formation]

Where it is claimed that a low rate on a particular commodity is justified by water competition, it may be shown in rebuttal that this commodity is never in fact transported by water between the points in question.- Holdzkom v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 42.

« ПретходнаНастави »