IN THE MATTER OF THE ST. LOUIS MILLERS' ASSOCIATION. April 19, 1887. The Commission reiterates that it has no authority to order or sanction the giving of special privileges. "Milling in transit" having long been permitted by common carriers to millers at certain points, and a large quantity of "transits" being said to be out, which can be and are made use of to give millers at Minneapolis an advantage in rates over those at St. Louis, the Commission cannot correct the wrong by giving or authorizing special rates to the St. Louis millers. COOLEY, Chairman: The Commission is in receipt of a petition from the St. Louis Millers' Association, signed by Lewis Fusz as its president, and praying relief against discriminating rates said to prevail on transportation of flour from Minneapolis under what is known as the "transit" system, and which, while continued, is alleged to preclude the mills south and east of Minneapolis from competing with that point for domestic or foreign trade. We do not understand the petition to complain of the rates that have been established by railroads for the transportation of flour from Minneapolis under the Interstate Commerce Law, but on the contrary it concedes that the new rates are reasonable as compared with those from St. Louis. What is complained of is that there is on hand a large accumulation of what is known as "transits" which must control the rates until they are worked off, and that as a consequence the new rates are ineffective except as applied to local points between Minneapolis and Chicago. Thus, while the tariff is thirty-six cents per barrel from Minneapolis to Chicago, the actual rate is still ten cents per barrel, and the milling interests in all other sections of the country are paralyzed by such a monstrous discrimination. The petition does not clearly indicate the relief which the Association thinks it is entitled to. It is clear that the Commission could not grant relief by giving to St. Louis exceptional advantages corresponding to those which Minneapolis is said now to enjoy. That would be a discrimination against other localities as indefensible and as much opposed to the spirit of the law as the transit system itself. Neither could the Commission compel the railroads upon which St. Louis relies for transportation to reduce their rates on flour to the level of what is said to be the actual rates from Minneapolis, when, as the petitioner concedes, a higher rate is reasonable. If the "transit" system is pernicious, it would obviously be unwarrantable for the Commission to order or sanction anything that would extend or perpetuate the mischief. It may be questionable, perhaps, whether the so-called "transits" have such validity in law that the companies issuing them are bound to give transportation according to their terms when the effect would be to discriminate in rates in favor of one or more localities against others. That question, however, is not brought before us by the petition, and could only be raised in some proceeding which would directly present it, and in which parties interested would have opportunity to be heard. IN THE MATTER OF THE UNITED STATES COMSION OF FISH AND FISHERIES. April 19, 1887. The United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries being one of the Agencies of Government, and the distribution of fish and fish eggs by it being made by authority of the Government, the transportation of the fish and fish eggs so distributed falls within the exception contained in Section 22 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, and the rate is not governed by the published tariff. The question of free transportation to employees and agents of the Commission and of the National Museum raised but not passed upon. On April 19, 1887, the following communication was received by the Commission : UNITED STATES COMMISSION OF FISH AND FISHERIES, The President of the Interstate Commerce Commission. mission has enjoyed certain privileges given to it by the railroads, of the United States, with scarcely an exception, with regard to the transportation of fish and eggs from one part of the country to another in cars built specially for the purpose, and attached to passenger and express trains. The usual rate for such service to private individuals, when not performed as a matter of courtesy for railroad officials of other roads, is from 18 to 25 fares, which at an average rate of three cents per mile would represent from 54 to 75 cents per mile. The highest charge made by any of the roads to the Commission is 20 cents per mile for a car and five messengers, regular fares being paid for any number of persons above five. In many cases the cost of service is even less, being established by some roads at ten cents per mile; while in repeated instances no charge whatever is made; the car and messengers being carried free. It is estimated that the reduction in cost to the United States by these concessions amounts to not less than twenty or thirty thousand dollars per annum. The appropriations made by Congress would be entirely inadequate to meet the cost of operations of transportation but for the concessions in question; and tho scope of the work of the Commission would be greatly reduced if full payment was required. The railroad companies are all interested in the work of the Commission, and especially in having proper plants of fish made along their lines; thus increasing the food resources of the country traversed, and inducing a considerable amount of travel on the part of anglers and others. I find in Section 22 of the Act the following clause: "That nothing in this Act shall apply to the carriage, storage or handling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States, State or municipal governments, or for charitable purposes," etc.; and I now beg to inquire whether this applies to the service in question, and whether I may assure such railroads as are willing to continue the favor, that their favorable action in the premises would be legal. I ask for an answer at your early convenience, as the work of distribution of shad to the west should begin at an early day. I would also ask to be informed whether the railroads may continue their practice of issuing to the U. S. Fish Commission and the National Museum passes to enable their explorers and agents to carry out their official duty at less expense to the United States. It is of course understood that all passes to be used on private business are to be excluded; but a large sum of money is saved annually to the Government by the practice in question. I have not yet ascertained whether the railroad companies would be willing to continue their liberal action in this respect, but desire to have some ruling from you on the subject. Very respectfully, SPENCER F. BAIRD, U. S. Commissioner Fish and Fisheries, SCHOONMAKER, Commissioner, replying, said : As the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries is one of the agencies of the Government, and the distribution of fish and fish eggs is by authority of the Government, it would seem clear that such transportation falls within the exception in the 22nd Section of the Act to regulate commerce, recited in the communication. [And after citing as conclusive on this branch of the inquiry the opinion In the Matter of Indian Supplies, be continued.] The other branch of the inquiry "whether the railroads may continue their practice of issuing to the United States Fish Commission and the National Museum passes to enable their employees and agents to carry on their official duty at less expense to the United States, the Commission declines to express any opinion upon in advance of an actual case that may be presented for its official action. The act is silent upon the question of passes or free carriage for officers or agents of the Government, and manifestly the question should only be considered and decided upon a hearing after complaint, should any be presented, for alleged violation of the law. IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPORT TRADE OF BOSTON. April 23, 1887. It seems not to be illegal for railroad companies connecting Boston with western points to make the rates from such points to Boston upon grain and provisions for export as low as the rates to New York, although the rates upon like property for local consumption are higher to Boston than to New York, the distance being somewhat greater. Reasons given why this may be a necessity of the situation. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. COOLEY, Chairman. Several petitions regarding this trade are before us: One from the Fitchburg Railroad Company, and others from the Boston and Lowell, the New York and New England, the Central Vermont line, and the Boston and Albany railroad companies. All seek the same relief, and upon a state of facts, which may be summarized as follows: For many years it has been the practice of the railroad companies connecting Boston with western points, to make the rates from such points to Boston, upon grain and provisions for export, as low as the rates to New York, although the rates upon property for local consumption have during the same time been higher to Boston than to New York, the distance being somewhat greater. The rates to the seaboard and abroad, it was shown, are in effect determined by the shortest line from the interior, which for this purpose is the Pennsylvania line; the other lines conforming substantially to those rates as a security to participation in the traffic. The equalization of rates upon the export business has sometimes been made by way-billing to Boston at New York rates, but as this is not always practicable it has more commonly been made by paying a rebate equal to the difference between Boston and New York rates. Making the allowance in some form has been essential to the existence of the trade, since the ocean rates from Boston and New York are not materially different, and higher interior rates would exclude Boston altogether from participation in the foreign trade. |