CHAPTER XXVIII. OTHER PLACE DISCRIMINATIONS. THERE are multitudes of other place discriminations besides those related to the long and short haul question. The Business Men's League of St. Louis and the St. Louis Merchants Exchange complain of serious discrimination against their city as compared with Chicago, Kansas City, Omaha, etc., in rates on corn, wheat, oats, groceries, hardware, and cotton.1 Des Moines gets supplies from Chicago at 60 cents, while Fort Dodge, the same distance from Chicago, pays 72 cents.2 Shoe manufacturers and wholesale grocers of Atlanta who have had to close down declare they were ruined by discriminative freight rates. Two years ago a prohibitive rate was put on cotton bound for Atlanta, but the freight agents of the leading railroads entering the city were indicted by the Federal grand jury and the rate was withdrawn. Mobile complains of loss of business because of discriminations in favor of New Orleans on one side and Pensacola on the other. The Fort Wayne Commercial Club complains of discrimination in rates, demurrage, switching, supply of cars, etc. The lumber rate to Boston from points in West Virginia on the Norfolk and Western is 293 cents, while points on the B. & O. and Chesapeake and Ohio in the same State and the same distance from Boston have a rate of 23 cents.3 The 1 Sen. Com. 1905, pp. 2527-2529. 2 Senator Dolliver, Sen. Com. 1905, p. 2094. Pennsylvania Railroad taking lumber to points on the Long Branch Railroad made the rates by adding to the New York rate an arbitrary charge of 5 cents a hundred lbs. if the lumber came from Saginaw, Mich., but only 2 cents if the shipping point was Buffalo; held an unlawful discrimination.4 Even so important a city as Philadelphia has had serious complaints to make at times of the favoritism shown New York by sending many of the best trains from Washington north through Philadelphia without running into Broad Street Station, but stopping only at West Philadelphia, and by arranging excursion tickets so that southern buyers would go to New York instead of Philadelphia.5 In June, 1905, the New Haven and Hartford notified connecting lines that it would not receive any further shipments of coal for delivery east of the Connecticut River or north of Hartford after August 31. Such an order constitutes a compound discrimination against certain localities and a specific commodity. The whole of New England suffers from a discrimination of about 100 percent in freight rates, the average rate in New England being about double the average for the United States. Quoting my testimony before the United States Industrial Commission: "Another phase of discrimination was brought out very prominently in our studies in New England, and the best source of information, perhaps, is the report made by the Massachusetts Railroad Commis 4 10 I. C. C. Decis. 456, Jan. 13, 1905. 5 See the series of broadsides on these subjects in the Philadelphia North American during August, 1903, and the early part of 1904. An excursion ticket from Washington to New York and return allowed 10 days in New York. Formerly a southern buyer going north on such a ticket could stop over in Philadelphia. But in 1903 this stop-over privilege was revoked, and if the buyer stopped in Philadelphia and then bought an excursion to New York he could only stay five days in New York. The result was that southern buyers began to leave Philadelphia out in the cold and merchants found that "the present tariff arrangements are working incalculable injury to wholesale houses in Philadelphia," and some of them had to open houses in New York. sion a few years ago (1894), in which they compared the average freight rate on New England roads, individual roads, and the average of all the roads there, showing that our rates were about double the average freight rate in the Middle States, or in the Middle West, and that it was clearly double what the average freight rate was for the whole United States, and they argued with much force that it was really a discrimination against New England as a whole, especially against Boston. One of the pleas put forward in discussing the question of leasing the Boston and Albany was that the giving over of the Boston and Albany to the New York Central control would intensify instead of relieve that sectional discrimination against New England as a whole, because the road would come under the control of those interested chiefly in the development of New York City, and not in the development of Boston and the New England States."6 In the Cincinnati Maximum Rate Case, involving a large number of railways and steamship lines, the Commission found discrimination between the rates from the eastern seaboard and central territory to southern points, and fixed a schedule of maximum rates from Cincinnati and Chicago to Knoxville, Chattanooga, Rome, Atlanta, Meridian, Birmingham, Anniston, and Selma, and required the railroads to revise their rates to other points in the South in conformity with the provisions of the order. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was held that the order could not be enforced against the railroads, it being the opinion of the majority of the court that the Interstate Act does not give the Commission power to fix rates, such power not being expressly conferred and being too great to be implied 6 Ind. Com. ix, p. 133. 7 4 I. C. C. Decis. 593. The order was made May 29, 1894, on petition of the Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v. 23 railway companies, and the Chicago Freight Bureau v. 31 railways and 5 steamship companies. The companies refused to comply and the Circuit Court dismissed the bill for an enforcement, October, 1896, 62 Fed. Rep. 690; 76 Fed. Rep. 183. from the prohibition of unreasonable rates and the general authority given the Commission to enforce the law,8 so that the discrimination the Commission sought to abolish between different sections of the country is still in operation. Sectional discrimination, either intentional or unintentional, is bad enough, but there is a still wider and more objectionable form of discrimination as between the country and the big cities. The whole inland territory is made tributary to a few competing points. As Hadley says: "The points where there is no competition are made to pay the fixed charges." The railroads make whatever rates are necessary to get business on the through routes, and compel the rural districts to pay rates high enough to make up for the low rates on through traffic. In many cases local rates in country districts are almost as high as they were in the old stage-coach days. Senator Dolliver suggests that every village and interior community in the United States has a grievance against the railways on account of discrimination against them in favor of the large centres.10 Every small town, and every small shipper and every farmer has to pay tribute to the big cities. The effect is to build up the cities in wealth and population at the expense of the country. For example, while Indianapolis increased by 32,389 inhabitants from 1880 to 1890, 49 counties remained stationary, and 21 counties lost. So Detroit grew greatly, while 20 counties in the State, nearly all the counties in Southern Michigan, lost population. "It is manifest that the railroads are greatly aiding the cities in drawing to themselves the best and the worst from the country, and every moment are increasing the magnitude of the municipal problem.' 11 8 I. C. C. v. Railway, 167 U. S. 479, May, 1897, reaffirming 162 U. S. 184 and citing 145 U. S. 263, 267. Justice Harlan dissented. 9 "Railroad Transportation," p. 114. 10 Sen. Com. 1905, p. 844. 11 Atlantic Monthly, vol. 73, p. 803, June, 1894. Mr. Alexander says that the railways should have credit for decreasing the discriminations made by nature. "Thirty years ago it cost over a dollar a pound to carry from New York machinery and tools to work the mines of Utah, and the trip consumed the whole summer, during which the purchaser lost the use of his money. Now the trip requires but two weeks or less, and the rate is about two cents. Comparing these rates, and considering the character of the present service as compared with the old, it is not an exaggeration to say that the railroads have removed about ninety-nine one-hundredths of the discrimination against Utah which nature ordained in surrounding her with deserts and mountains." 12 It is true that the railways have greatly reduced the obstacles of nature, but it is also true that they have used their power of reduction unequally, arbitrarily, and unjustly. The discriminations of nature have not the quality of justice or injustice that attaches to discrimination by human agencies. In the exercise of the function of removing the difficulties of nature the common carrier must be impartial. 12 E. P. Alexander in "Railway Practice," p. 8. |