TABLE XII.

Rates actually charged and schedule rates which should have been charged 10 costumersa electric current in the city of.....

In another village, of 1,400 inhabitants, the electric company granted special rates to 42 out of a total of 99 consumers, The amounts which those 42 favored consumers actually paid, and the corresponding schedule charge for each one are diagrammed in Fig. 1.

By way of explaining the diagram, a concrete illustration may be taken. For example, consumer No. 36 was paying about $3.40 per month. The extended line shows that he should have paid about $7.20. The margin between the dotted and heavy lines represents the discrimination equivalent to a rebate, about $3.80. The zig-zag character of the dotted line shows the lack of system in granting the rates represented in the diagram; and the shaded area lying between the dotted and heavy lines roughly represents the money value of the discrimination in favor of these 42 con

sumers.

Another utility, operating in a city of 9,000, exacted from one of its consumers $50 a year for 40 lights, and furnished another consumer 50 lights in exchange for the "shavings from his mill."

The most striking illustration of discrimination due to former competitive conditions which can be cited, is that practiced by an electric company operating in a city of about 30,000. The money value of the discrimination at the present time is shown in table XIII, which gives the total number of cases of discrimination, the total amounts charged 121 consumers on the average per month, and the total amount which should have been charged according to the published schedules of the company:

TABLE XIII.

Showing the amount of discrimination and the number of cases of discrimination in a city of about 30,000.

121 cases of discrimination (including 8 in which more than schedule charge was exacted)..

113 cases of discrimination (excluding 8 in which more than schedule charge was exacted)..

$1,895 39

1.942 69

It will be noted that in this city there were in reality 127 cases of discrimination, but in 6 cases the actual or schedule charges were not obtainable; hence those cases had to be rejected in the calculation shown in table XIII. In eight cases the consumers

5-R. R.

were paying more than the schedule charge, which fact appears clearly in the diagram, Fig. 2, wherever the peaks protrude above the line representing schedule rates.

Practically all of the cases above cited will probably continue to exist for some time, owing to the fact that the special rates were contracted for prior to April 1, 1907, and must continue until the contracts expire, unless it be held that such contracts were void at common law when made.

In Fig. 2 are shown in graphic form the 121 cases above referred to. The basis of this diagram is similar to that of Fig. 1. Attention may be directed to the fact, that as the work of equaliz ing these discriminatory rates progresses, the lower line will continue to move upward, and when all discriminatory rates have been abolished, the two lines will coincide and the shaded area, which roughly represents discrimination, will entirely disappear.

CONCLUSION.

Summary of all Utilities Reporting Discriminatory Charges. The following summary of the entire situation affords some, though not a very accurate basis for comparison between the different classes of utilities:

In the foregoing table XIV 60 per cent of the water companies reporting had discriminatory rates in effect. The next highest rates are for electric companies, namely, 57.9 per cent. Telephone companies reported somewhat earlier than other utilities, and the statistics for other utilities show the situation late in October and up to about the middle of November. In general, it might be expected that the percentages for other

utilities than telephone companies would be lower on account of the additional time allowed them for equalizing discriminatory rates.

There are two facts which can not be emphasized too strongly or too often. In the first place, conditions, as they appear on the foregoing pages, are conditions after the Utilities Law had been in operation over a year. The foregoing facts represent merely the residue of an accumulation made during a period of unrestricted competition, and on the dissipation of which a year's time and effort had already been expended. Some idea of what progress had already been made in eliminating discriminatory rates in the course of the year, can be gained by comparing the reports made at this time with statements submitted at a subsequent occasion, incidental to some formal matter before the Commission. For instance, a certain electric company reports but 15 consumers enjoying special rates for electric current on Oct. 1, 1908. In January, 1908, the same company applied for authority to equalize rates and submitted an exhibit showing the discriminatory rates which were then in force. Table XV presents the complex situation which prevailed at that time as clearly as a confusing tangle of special rates can be presented: