Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mileage, while a circumstance to be considered along with all the other facts, is by no means decisive, or the most important, in determining the reasonableness of rates.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

In many cases, even on the same road, the relation of rates as between different points cannot be fixed altogether upon relative distance.Cannon v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 537.

In the absence of other influences, distance is a controlling element in determining what is a reasonable rate-Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 180; Hill v. N. C. & St. L. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 343.

Charges for distances greatly dissimilar need not be proportioned to the relative distances.- Eau Claire v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 174, 314, 4 Inters. Com. R. 65, 5 I. C. C. R. 264.

While distance is not always the controlling element in determining what rate is reasonable, there is ordinarily no better measure of the carrier's service.- James v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 436, 490, 609, 3 I. C. C. R. 225.

That rates are not on a mileage basis does not make them necessarily unreasonable.- La Crosse M. & J. Un. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 9, 1 I. C. C. R. 629.

The ratio of rates should generally decrease with increase of distance, but modifying circumstances often exist.- Lincoln Board of Trade v. Burl. & Mo. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 647, 2 Inters. Com. R. 95, 2 I. C. C. R. 147.

The mileage basis of adjusting rates is not necessarily the most reasonable N. O. Cotton Exch. v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 648, 2 Inters. Com. R. 289, 2 I. C. C. R. 375.

Mileage as a basis for determining the comparative reasonableness of rates has been recognized in England as entirely impracticable, since 1872. The argument against it was strongly stated in that year: (a) It would prevent railway companies from lowering their fares and rates so as to compete with traffic by sea, by canal, or by a shorter or otherwise cheaper railway, and would thus deprive the public of the benefit of competition and the company of a legitimate source of profit. (b) It would prevent railway companies from making perfectly fair arrangements for carrying at a lower rate than usual goods brought in large and constant qualities, or for carrying for long distances at a lower rate than for short distances. (c) It would compel a company to carry for the same rate over a line which has been very expensive in

construction, or which, from gradients or otherwise, is very expensive in working, at the same rate at which it carries over less expensive lines. In short, to impose equal mileage on the companies would be to deprive the public of the benefit of much of the competition which now exists or has existed; to raise the charges on the public in many cases where the companies now find it to their interest to lower them; and to perpetuate monopolies in carriage, trade and manufacture in favor of those routes and places which are nearest and less expensive, where the varying charges of the companies now create competition.- Ransome v. Railway Co., 1 Nev. & McN. (Eng.) 63.

[blocks in formation]

In view of the difficulty of ascertaining the cost of transporting a single article, in order to ascertain the reasonableness of a rate prescribed, it is sometimes necessary to accept as a basis the average rate of all transportation per ton per mile.-Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Florida, 203 U. S. 256, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 108, affg. s. c. 48 Fla. 146, 37 So. 657.

That the rate per ton mile of the entire business of the carriers is much less than the rate per ton mile on local business under the rates fixed by a state commission, does not establish the reasonableness of the latter rates, for the rate per mile obviously decreases as the length of the haul increases.- Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47.

The rate per ton per mile is not always the measure of a reasonable rate, but is always valuable as affording a basis of comparison for relative rate burdens.- Farrar v. So. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 640.

The rate per ton per mile, while often instructive, is not by any means a fair index of a reasonable rate.— Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382.

The well-known principle that while the aggregate rate should increase, the rate per ton per mile should decrease, as distance increases, is not a rule required by statute, and is subject to qualifications and exceptions.- Hilton L. Co. v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 17.

Rates for the terminal portion of a through haul, which are a continuation of mileage rates to the end of the haul, are, in the absence of exceptional conditions, reasonable and proper.- Board of Trade v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 503.

Distance is undoubtedly a factor, and perhaps ought to be a much more important factor, in the determination of rates, but where the distances in dispute vary from 100 to 1,000 miles, any attempt to adjust

those rates on the sole basis of the rate per ton per mile would be impracticable.—Board of R. R. Comrs. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 304.

The rate per ton per mile rule brings rates down to the narrowest point of scrutiny, and for that purpose is valuable; but it excludes consideration of other circumstances and conditions which enter into the making of rates, no matter how compulsory or imperious they may be, and it cannot, therefore, be accepted as controlling in determining the reasonableness of rates.- Gustin v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 277; Business Men's Assn. v. Ch. St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 41, 2 I. C. C. R. 52.

The charge per ton per mile need not, as an absolute rule, diminish with distance. Manufacturers', etc., Union v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 483, 630, 2 Inters. Com. R. 228, 3 Inters. Com. R. 115, 4 I. C. C. R. 79.

[63]

Manner in which rates were brought about.

On an investigation as to the reasonableness of rates for the transportation of coal, contracts between railroad companies and certain coal companies which proposed the construction of a competing railroad, whereby the said railroads purchased the collieries, are relevant evidence.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 563.

The fact that an advance in rates is the result of the joint and concerted action of several railroads may properly be considered as bearing upon the reasonableness and validity of such advance.- Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548.

[ocr errors]

It is incumbent upon the Interstate Commerce Commission when the unreasonableness of rates is in issue before it, to consider how those rates were brought about - whether they are the product of untrammeled competition or the result of a concert of action or combination between the carriers establishing and maintaining them.- Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505.

[blocks in formation]

In matters of rates one case seldom an exact precedent for another, see ante, § 20, note [1].

-

The determination whether rates in question would allow a reasonable return depends, in the final analysis, on the present and future, rather than the past financial and traffic situation of the carrier.Grain Shippers' Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 158.

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

Comparison with other classifications as method of determining as to proper classification,- see ante, § 28, note [34]. Comparisons with other rates,-see also ante, § 31, note [28]. Through rates as standards of comparison,-see ante, § 31, note [71]. Through rate not basis for determining whether local rate violates long and short haul rule,- see ante, § 36, note [22].

Comparisons between the rates of two states are of little value, unless all the elements that enter into the problem are presented.— Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 418, affg. 64 Fed. 165.

That the cost of carriage of all coal upon an entire railroad system, is a certain per cent. of the gross receipts from all coal, does not warrant the commission in concluding that upon a particular line or part of the system the cost of carriage bears the same ratio to the coal receipts of that particular line or part.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 74 Fed. 784.

Under Interst. Com. Act, § 1, the question is whether a given rate is, in and of itself, unreasonable and unjust. Except as evidentiary circumstances, rates to other places are irrelevant, unless there is a showing that conditions are substantially similar.—Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

While the revenue per ton per mile over other routes on other lines and to other destinations is often suggestive in arriving at a proper estimate of the reasonableness of a rate over a route complained of, it is by no means conclusive. Varying conditions existing on different lines must of necessity justify differences in rates for hauls of the same distance. The real question in any such complaint is the reasonableness of the particular rate on the particular line between the particular points in question. In testing such a rate, the rate on the same or adjacent lines in the immediate territory are of much greater significance and afford a much more accurate basis for the action of a commission.- Dallas Bureau v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 257.

It is competent to compare distances, rates and conditions on other roads, in dealing with an alleged unreasonable rate.- Cannon v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 537.

Rates influenced by water competition possess value as standards of comparison but are not always conclusive in fixing rates to intermediate and non-competitive points.- Shipper's Union v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 250.

A rate can seldom be considered "in and of itself," but must be taken almost invariably in relation with other rates.-Tileston Mill Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 346.

In order to make rates charged in one part of the country proper standards of comparison in a case of alleged unjust and unreasonable rates in another section, a substantial similarity in transportation conditions in the two sections must be shown.- Evans v. U. Pac. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 520; Hopper v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 91 Iowa, 638, 60 N. W. 487.

Rates in one part of the country afford no criterion for determining the reasonableness of rates charged in another section of the country where conditions are unlike.- Morrall v. U. Pac. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 121.

In determining the absolute or relative reasonableness of a rate markedly grouped, it may not fairly be compared with the rate per ton per mile from that station of the group which is farthest from the place of destination, but only with the rate from that station which is the average distance of all the stations in the group from the place of destination.- Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 828, 5 I. C. C. R. 161.

The question of the reasonableness of rates does not always depend on the opinion of qualified witnesses, but is often determined by a comparison of rates, records, etc., filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 828, 5 I. C. C. R. 161.

A former special and preferred rate is not a fair criterion of the reasonableness of a present rate.- Myers v. Pa. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 151, 218, 403, 2 I. C. C. R. 573.

In determining the reasonableness of rates to a point by a longer competing line, the distance and rates by the shortest route should be taken into account.-Lincoln Board of Trade v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 648, 2 Inters. Com. R. 98, 2 I. C. C. R. 155.

In determining the reasonableness of rates, for relatively short distances, the rates on long shipments cannot be made a basis for comparison. Crews v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 490, 703, 1 I. C. C. R. 401.

Rates charged by other roads similarly situated may be considered in determining as to the reasonableness of rates.- Evans v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 314, 326, 641, 1 I. C. C. R. 325.

Special favors in the form of reduced rates to particular customers may form an element in the inquiry whether, as a matter of fact, the general or standard rates are reasonable. If they are extended to such persons at the expense of the general public, the fact must be taken into account in ascertaining whether a given tariff of general prices is or is

« AnteriorContinuar »