VI. PERSONAL DISCRIMINATION
Rebates and monopoly, with attendant danger to carriers, 185.-- Personal discrimination defined, 188.--Distinction between rebating and general rate cutting, 188.--Early forms of rebates, 189.--Underbilling, underclassification, etc., 190.--Private car lines, 192.--More recent forms of rebating described, 195.--Terminal and tap-lines, 196.--Midnight tariffs, 197.--Outside transactions, special credit, etc., 198.--Distribution of coal cars, 199.--Standard Oil Company practices, 200.--Discriminatory open adjustments from competing centres, 202.--Frequency of rebating since 1900, 204-6.--The Elkins Law of 1903, 205.--Discrimination since 1906, 207.--The grain elevation cases, 211.--Industrial railroads once more, 212.
The philosophy of rebating has perhaps never been better described than in the following quotation from the Cullom Committee investigation of 1886:
"Mr. WICKER. I am speaking now of when I was a railroad man. Here is quite a grain point in Iowa, where there are five or six elevators. As a railroad man, I would try and hold all those dealers on a 'level keel,' and give them all the same tariff rate. But suppose there was a road five or six or eight miles across the country, and those dealers should begin to drop in on me every day or two and tell me that that road across the country was reaching within a mile or two of our station and drawing to itself all the grain. You might say that it would be the just and right thing to do to give all the five or six dealers at this station a special rate to meet that competition through the country. But, as a railroad man, I can accomplish the purpose better by picking out one good, smart, live man, and, giving him a concession of three or four cents a hundred, let him go there and scoop the business. I would get the tonnage, and that is what I want. But if I give it to the five it is known in a very short time. I can illustrate that better by a story told by Mr. Vanderbilt when he and his broker had a deal in stocks. The broker came in and said, 'Mr. Vanderbilt, I would like to take in my friend John Smith.' Mr. Vanderbilt said, 'Let us see how this will work. Here are you and myself in this deal now. We take in John Smith; that makes a hundred and eleven. I guess I won't do it.' When you take in these people at the station on a private rebate you might as well make it public and lose what you intend to accomplish. You can take hold of one man and build him up at the expense of the others, and the railroad will get the tonnage."
"SENATOR HARRIS. The effect is to build that one man up and destroy the others?"
"Mr. WICKER. Yes, sir; but it accomplishes the purposes of the road better than to build up the six."
The force of this description of the underlying motive for personal discrimination, so far as the carrier is concerned; namely to build up one man at the expense of his competitors and to attach him in interest indissolubly to the company, is well exemplified in a case which occurred in 1908 at Galveston, Texas.[162] Practically all railway traffic entering Galveston was destined for export. Wharfage facilities were limited to two concerns, one of them being the Southern Pacific Terminal Co. A uniform charge of one cent per hundredweight for cotton seed meal and cake passing over the wharves of both companies had been the rule for a long time. Yet it appeared on complaint that one merchant had been granted wharfage space under discriminatingly favorable conditions. Exemption from demurrage charges, free storage room and other favors and a fixed rental of $15,000 per year irrespective of the amount of his shipments, had enabled him, having been in business only since 1898, to build up a very large traffic. The export of cotton seed cake instead of meal had greatly increased since 1904. The business of all other competitors since this contract was made had shrunk to insignificant proportions by comparison with that done by this favored merchant. The margin of profit in the business was so small that the difference between the charges and privileges enjoyed by this individual and his competitors, was forcing them all out of business. It was estimated by the Interstate Commerce Commission that if the customary wharfage charges had been paid, the rental would have been nearly $30,000 for the year 1907, irrespective of other favors. The cotton planters complained also that this monopoly limited their market and depressed business. It is clear that the larger the business, that is to say the more nearly it became a monopoly, the smaller became the wharfage charges per hundredweight under this system of a fixed rental; and, in consequence, the greater was the disability of the other shippers. The advantage to the railroad appeared in a contract entered into, which provided that all traffic for this individual should be routed over the Southern Pacific or its connecting lines. As he had practically gathered in all the cotton seed export business of Texas and the adjoining states within two years, it is evident that this consideration was of great value to the railroad. The economic motive in this case and in the one previously cited was the same. It will be found in fact to underlie almost all cases of personal favoritism and discrimination.
The supreme disadvantage in building up a great monopoly in order to win traffic for a railroad is, of course, that the moment the shipper becomes sufficiently powerful, he can play off one road against another, thus becoming practically master of the situation. Sindbad is soon overwhelmed by the old man of the sea. And the weaker the road financially, the more powerful is the appeal, to which at last even the strongest lines must succumb. The history of the Standard Oil Company during the eighties clearly exemplifies this. The rapid rise of the cattle "eveners" yet earlier, until, as the private refrigerator car companies they controlled the situation, was primarily traceable to the same causes. The late J. W. Midgly[163] gives a forcible illustration in the attempt in 1894 of ninety-five railroads to reduce the mileage allowance paid for use of oil tank cars owned by private companies from three-fourths to one-half cent per mile, loaded and empty. The Union Tank Line promptly replied that it would in that event at once concentrate all its vast tonnage to points north and west of Chicago, upon the single line--presumably the weakest one--which would continue the old rate. This argument was irresistible; and in the old days of unregulated competition was in the nature of things bound to be so.
Careful distinction must be made at this point, between personal discrimination and general rate cutting. Rebating,--that is to say, departure from published tariffs,--occurs in both cases. The difference between the two is that in the one case it is special, particular and secret; while in the other it is so general, if not indeed universal, as to be matter of common knowledge. Rebating, in other words, is a common feature of rate wars. But, on the other hand, general harmony in the rate situation by no means implies the absence of personal favoritism. During a wide-open rate war, indeed, the most iniquitous aspect of rebating,--inequality of treatment as between rival shippers,--may be quite absent. All may be getting the same rate, namely a cut rate; although the chances are of course that the bigger the shipper, the more substantial the concessions offered. It is important to keep this distinction clear, especially since the railways have awakened to the losses to themselves attendant upon rate wars.
All parties concerned are probably agreed in the hope of eliminating the rate war forever. But there is not the same evidence of either an intent or desire on the part of railway officials to get rid of what, from a public point of view, is even more insidious and unjust; that is to say, the secret concession of favors to a few chosen large shippers. General rate wars, as will later appear, are probably a thing of the past.[164] But secret rebating seems, on the other hand, to be an evil which must be combatted vigorously and un-intermittently in order to uproot it as a feature of American industrial life. And of course it must cease. For it is the most prolific source of evil known in transportation. It has probably had more to do with the creation of great industrial monopolies than any other single factor. The first feature of any reform of our intolerable "trust" situation, must be to keep the rails open on absolutely even terms to all shippers, large or small.
The keynote of discrimination is, as we have said, the creation of monopoly, or, at all events, of so large an aggregation of shipments, that a profitable partnership between the shipper and the railroad results. This is clear in recent indictments which charge that the railroads concerned, having selected one large firm of forwarders in New York and Chicago are giving them a monopoly in respect of all imports. In the case of the great beef packers, the railroad having once built up a shipper by favored rates, may continue in the enjoyment of this concentrated tonnage with greater security and profit than if it moved in a multitude of small shipments by numerous competitors. Of course there is another less common form of rebating which, so far as its profit is concerned, is limited to the particular dishonest railway official who arranges the matter. Such favoritism as this, however, represents a loss to the company; and has always been stamped out by the carriers when discovered. The principal form above described, is much more difficult to uproot. And yet for some reason, it is a distinctively American abuse. European countries seem never to have suffered from it, to any such degree as has the United States. It is, as has just been said, perhaps the most iniquitous, the most persistent and until very recently the most nearly ineradicable evil connected with the great business of transportation.
Rebating in the early days consisted in simply refunding by direct payment to the favored shipper, a certain proportion of the freight bill. This refund might be in cash, in presents to himself or his family, in salary allowances to clerks, in free passes, or in free transportation of other goods. In a recent case in New York it has taken the form of importer's "commissions." But, since 1887 at least, an inconvenience in all such transactions is their necessary entry in some form or other upon the books of the company. Of course such rebates could be covered up as a fictitious charge to operating expenses; or, as in the case of the Atchison in 1893, might be carried as an asset, as if such refunds would ever be paid. Nearly $4,000,000 was thus entered as padding in Atchison assets, when it went into a receiver's hands at that time.[165] Much of the flagrant Standard Oil rebating in the eighties was almost openly, and certainly boldly, carried on by these means. But public sentiment was always against it; and of course, it was a breach of good faith as between the railways themselves, in their endeavor to maintain agreed rates. Secrecy, therefore, always attaches to these transactions; and the most ingenious devices were invented to confer favors without detection.
Underclassification of freight was a very common device in the old days. It has reappeared again since 1907 in much the same form. There is a great difference between the freight on a keg of nails and of fine brass hardware or cutlery. Who is to know whether a shipment be billed as one or the other? Is every box of dry goods to be examined in order to discover whether it contains silks or the cheapest cotton cloth? A carload of lumber or cordwood might easily by prearrangement be filled inside with high grade package freight. The utmost vigilance is in fact necessary on the part of carriers, to prevent such fraudulent practices by shippers. Under the Joint Rate Trunk Line Inspection Bureau in 1893, 183,575 such false descriptions or underweighings were detected on westbound shipments from seaboard cities alone.[166] What the amount of such Underclassification of freight by collusion between agent and shipper was, can only be conjectured. Even more difficult to detect was the practice of under-billing.[167] At a certain time, the rate on flour from Minneapolis to New York was thirty cents per hundredweight, divided between connecting roads in the proportion of ten cents from Minneapolis to Chicago, and twenty cents from there on to destination. In the meantime, as against this ten cent proportion of the through rate to New York, the local rate from Minneapolis to Chicago was twelve and one-half cents. As between two rival shippers, the one sending to Chicago on a New York through rate instead of a local one, would enjoy a clear advantage of twenty-five per cent. over his competitor. And who was to know whether a car billed through to New York, was really going beyond Chicago or not? In one period of three months, 1098 cars thus through billed to New York were turned over at Chicago to a belt line road; and only 468 actually went on to that destination. About sixty per cent. of the traffic was being rebated by this means. Very complicated arrangements of this sort were rife in the Missouri river rate wars on grain in 1896. This was known as the "expense-bill" system; or "carrying at the balance of the through rate."[168]
Many services or facilities are worth as much to a merchant as a direct refund in cash. He may be given free cartage. This was a very common expedient in the early days; being fully considered by the Interstate Commerce Commission.[169] Or free storage on wheels or in freight houses may be utilized as a cover for favoritism. A low carload rate might be given, and then the goods be held, storage free, by the railway at some central point; to be subsequently delivered piecemeal as sold. The dealer would be relieved of all expense for warehousing as well as of high less-than-carload rates from the initial point of shipment. The competitor who paid the less-than-carload rate on an equal volume of business would be sadly handicapped. Cases are on record where fish was thus stored free from November to February, being reshipped on order in small lots. Or an excessive allowance might be made by the railway for some service or facility afforded by the shipper. The beef interests first got their hold upon the carriers by demanding liberal rebates in return for acting as "eveners" in the partition of traffic between the trunk lines about 1873. Complaint against excessive allowances to favored grain elevator owners, was common all through the West for years. The elevator allowance cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1906-1910 concerning practices on the Union Pacific lines illustrate the delicacy of the issues involved.[170]
Deductions from the full tariff for the use of special equipment owned by shippers, has been one of the commonest means of building up great monopolies.[171] The allowances to the Standard Oil Company for the use of its tank cars, before the construction of pipe lines, and especially prior to 1888, were a source of great unrest.[172] But the construction of pipe lines has not lessened their importance. It is on record that the use of private cars in other lines of business has led to grave abuses. When stock cars and beef refrigerator cars, owned by private shippers, first began to be used about 1883-1884, they were much sought after by the railroads as traffic. They moved regularly, not by seasons; the volume of business was large and rapidly growing; it was concentrated at a few large initial points; much of it was high class and very remunerative. With the enormous extension of refrigeration to cover the long-distance movement of fruit and vegetables, a still more powerful encouragement came into play. These latter businesses were highly seasonal. Few roads could afford to maintain highly specialized equipment to care for a business of a few weeks length. But a private company operating all over the country, could utilize its cars first for early vegetables and fruits from the south, then from the middle west or the Oregon-Washington region, and finally in winter for oranges from California or Florida. The number of these cars rapidly increased until by 1903 there were 130,000 in service,--in fact about one-eleventh of all the freight cars in the United States were privately owned. The so-called Armour interests, primarily engaged in the packing business, were by far the largest single concern.
The system of payment for the use of these cars consisted of an allowance, based upon the mileage performed. This used to be one cent per mile, loaded and empty, for refrigerator cars. In 1894 a determined effort was made by the carriers to reduce this below the point then reached of three-fourths of a cent per mile. But the extraordinary concentration both of ownership and traffic, rendered it easy for the car companies to defeat the proposition. In the meantime the steady increase in volume of traffic, making whole trainloads possible, together with the growth of very long distance business, made it imperative that these trains be operated at high speed with few stops. This at once enormously enhanced the earning power of each car, as based upon mileage. The performance was often as high as four times that of the ordinary freight cars.
Under these new conditions, at the current rate of earnings, a car would pay for itself in three years, besides paying all expenses of maintenance. The burden of these allowances became very great. The situation some years ago is well described by a former member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as follows:--
"Investigations made by the Interstate Commerce Commission at different times have disclosed to some extent the very large sums received by shippers as mileage for the use of such cars.
"By an investigation made in 1889 it appeared that on a single line of road between Chicago and an interior Eastern point--a distance of 470 miles--refrigerator cars owned by three shipping firms made in nine months, from August 1, 1888, to May 1889, 7,428,406 miles, and earned for mileage $72,945.97, being about $8,112 a month or substantially at the rate of $100,000 a year.
"By another investigation, made in 1890, it appeared that private stock cars to the number of 250 had been used upon a line made up of two connecting roads between Chicago and New York, beginning with 150 cars on September 1, 1880, increased 30 more a month later, 20 more another month later, and reaching the total of 250 in June, 1890; that the cars altogether had cost $156,500, and had earned for mileage in two years, from September 1, 1888, to September 1, 1890, $205,582.68; that the entire expense to be deducted during that period for car repairs and salaries for their management was $34,050.48, leaving net revenue to the amount of $171,532.20, being an excess of $15,032 above the whole cost of the cars. The cars were, therefore, paid for and a margin besides in two years, and, thereafter, under the same management and with a corresponding use of the cars, an income of upward of $100,000 a year was assured on an investment fully repaid, or, in effect, on no investment whatever."
By 1903 the railroads were paying over $12,000,000 annually for the use of such equipment.
With the growth of their power, the extortionate demands of these private car lines, both upon the railroads and the shipper, steadily enlarged. From the roads they often compelled fictitious mileage allowances; and from the shipper the most outrageous charges were made for icing and other services en route. The reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission for 1903-1904 and of the Senate (Elkins) Committee of 1905 deal fully with these abuses. Moreover the Armour company gradually forced other competitors out of business, and with the growth of monopoly, its exactions became even more extreme. The following instance is typical.
"In 1898 the Armour Car Lines Company was furnishing cars for the movement of Michigan fruits from points on the Pere Marquette Railroad to Boston in competition with other private car companies, and its charge for refrigeration to Boston was $20 per car. Its present charge to Boston is $55 per car. Before the present exclusive contract was entered into between the Armour Car Lines and the Pere Marquette Railroad Company the actual quantity of ice required was charged for at $2.50 per ton. Under this system the cost of refrigerating cars from Pawpaw, Mich., to Dubuque, Iowa, averaged about $10 per car, while the present schedule of the Armour Car Lines is $37.50. The cost of icing from Mattawan, Mich., to Duluth was $7.50, as shown by an actual transaction in the year 1902, while the present refrigeration charge between those points is $45. The cost of icing pineapples from Mobile to Cincinnati under an exclusive contract with the Armour Car Lines is $45, while the cost of performing the same service from New Orleans to Cincinnati over the Illinois Central is $12.50 per car."
Fortunately the progressive enlargement of Federal powers of supervision has tended to check these exactions. But the system of special allowances for the use of privately owned equipment, is one which needs the most careful watching by the authorities.
With the passage of time, and especially since 1896, new and even more elaborate schemes for rebating have come to light. One of the most ingenious, which was discovered about 1904 to be very widespread, was the use of terminal or spur track railway companies.[173] In Hutchinson, Kansas, for example, were salt works having a capacity of some 6000 barrels a day. Two railways were available for shipments. A new company was incorporated, all its stock being held by the salt works owners, which constructed sidings to both railroad lines. The spur track was less than a mile long and cost only about $8000 to build. But the company was chartered as the Hutchinson and Arkansas River Railroad. Its officers were the owners of the salt mills. It owned neither engines nor cars. Yet it entered into a traffic agreement with the Atchison road for a division of the through rate to many important points, its share being about twenty-five per cent. So substantial a pro-rate was this, that in a few months the H. and A. R. R. received back some fifteen thousand dollars as its share of the through freight rates. And every dividend declared by it was, of course in effect a rebate enjoyed exclusively by this particular mill, as against less favored competitors.
Obviously, rebates assuming the above-described form are open only to very large shippers, to whom it is worth while to incur the considerable expense. But many concerns have already such trackage in or about their works. Nothing is needed except to incorporate them separately, and then to enter into suitable traffic agreements with standard roads. Many of the so-called trusts were implicated in such transactions, about 1904-1905. The International Harvester Company at Chicago had for years performed much of its own terminal service; and until 1904 was allowed as high as $3.50 per car for switching charges by connecting railroads. It then incorporated the Illinois Northern Railroad, which was promptly conceded twenty per cent, of all through rates, with the Missouri river rate as a maximum. On this traffic it would be allowed as high as $12 per car, instead of $3.50 as before. The Illinois Steel Company afforded in 1905 an even more flagrant example. Apparently it had enjoyed extra-liberal proportions of through rates since 1897, by means of its separately incorporated and, in fact, really important terminal road. But an allowance of $700 to $1000 for hauling a trainload of coke some seven miles, yielded a profit on the business of perhaps ninety per cent. It was an advantage which no competitor could hope to equal. No doubt the practice of switching allowances was properly used at the start. But the large crop of cases discovered in 1904-1905 proved that they had come to be very widely used as a cover for rebating. It is not always easy, however, to decide when such an allowance ought to be made to a privately owned terminal company. The Anheuser-Busch case, decided in June, 1911, with a dissenting opinion by Commissioner Harlan, shows how intricately involved such issues may become.[174]
The so-called "midnight tariff" was a strictly legal way of conferring favors upon certain shippers. It was much in evidence during the grain wars between lines serving the Gulf ports about 1903. And it seems to have been a device used at times all over the country. A traffic manager wishing to steal all the business of a large shipper from some competing road, and to build him up at the expense of his rivals, secretly agrees to put into effect a low rate on a given date. The shipper then enters into contracts calling for perhaps several hundred carloads of grain to be delivered at that time. This reduction is publicly filed, perhaps thirty days in advance, with the Interstate Commerce Commission at Washington. But who is to discover it, in the great medley of new tariffs placed on file every day? Yet this is not all. A second tariff, restoring the full rate, is also filed to take effect very shortly,--perhaps only a day,--after the reduction occurs. All these are public, and open to all shippers alike. But only the one who was forewarned is able to take advantage of them. He rushes all his shipments forward while the reduced rates are in effect. Before other competitors can assemble their grain or other goods, the brief reduction has come to an end; and rates are restored to their former figure.
The President of the Chicago Great Western Railway has concisely described the commercial effect of one of these midnight tariffs.
"A clean profit, he says, over all expenses of one half of a cent per bushel is a satisfactory profit to the middleman; and a guaranteed rate of transportation of even so small a sum as one-quarter of a cent per bushel less than any other middleman can get, will give the man possessing it a monopoly of the business of handling the corn in the district covered by the guaranty. Why? Such are the facilities of trade by means of bills of lading, drafts, telegraphs, banks, etc., that to do an enormous corn trade, the middleman requires only a comparatively small capital to use as a margin. A capital of $50,000 is ample thus to handle 15,000,000 bushels, and with activity, double that amount, per annum. One quarter of a cent per bushel profit on 15,000,000 bushels would amount to $37,500 which is equal to .75 per cent. per annum on the capital employed."
A similar device was used by the Burlington road in its dealings with the Missouri river packing houses on export traffic. They signed an agreement making a rate to Germany of twenty-three cents per hundred to last until December 31, 1905. Before the expiration of this time, however, the roads concerned, publicly filed an amended tariff presumably for all shippers of thirty-five cents per hundred. They nevertheless continued the old rate to the packers. This case went to the Supreme Court which decided in 1908 that the device was unlawful and discriminatory.[175]
And then again there are all the possibilities of the printer's art to be used, in connection with the preparation of elaborate tariffs.[176] The tariff of "33 cents per hundredweight" may conceivably be a typographical error, to be speedily corrected in a supplementary hektograph sheet filed the next day. Involved and elaborate rate sheets may be reprinted with only one little change among a thousand items left as before. Different tariffs may interlock with complicated cross references. In one case in 1902 it took seven different tariffs to enable one to compute the rate for a given shipment. In twelve months, to December 1907, there were filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission 220,982 such tariffs, each containing changes in rates or rules. Some "expire with this shipment,"--and some agree to "protect" any rate of any competing carrier, that is to say, to meet it if it happen to be lower.
An entirely different plan of rebating,--and a most effective one,--has to do with apparently unrelated commercial transactions.[177] Many shippers are large sellers of supplies to the railroad. How easy then to make a concession in rates to an oil refinery for example, by paying a little extra for the lubricating oil bought from a subsidiary concern. The Federal authorities in recent years and especially in connection with the prosecution of the Standard Oil Company in 1908-1911, have discovered the most extraordinary variations in the prices paid by railroads for supplies. Independent concerns were often not allowed to compete in the sale of lubricants at all. It would be difficult to prove any connection between so widely separate sets of dealings; and yet it is clear that rebates are often given in this way. Or even more fruitful as an expedient, especially in these later days when rebating is a serious offence, why not confer a favor by extra liberality in allowances for damages to goods in transit? In 1909 the so-called Beef Trust was specifically ordered by the Attorney General of the United States to desist from such practices. Positively the only way to detect such fictitious allowances for damages, is to ferret out each case by itself. This is a slow and necessarily expensive process. Damage allowances and quid pro quo transactions in the purchase of supplies, are indeed almost "smokeless rebates," as they have aptly been termed.
Personal discrimination may be as effective upon competition through denial of facilities to some shippers, as through conferring of special favors upon others. Practices of this sort have been quite common in the coal business, especially in the matter of furnishing or refusing to furnish an ample supply of cars or suitable spur tracks to mines. In the well known Red Rock Fuel Company case in 1905,[178] the railroad definitely announced its policy, "not to have a lot of little shippers on its line who would ship coal when prices were high and then shut up shop and go home and let the large shippers have the lean years." The development of over 4,000 acres of coal lands was thus denied in favor of the large companies, until the Interstate Commerce Commission took the matter up. A year later came the startling revelations upon the Pennsylvania Railroad as to the practice of discrimination in furnishing cars to coal mines.[179] A comprehensive investigation by the company itself resulted in the discharge of a number of high officials. It appeared, for example, that the assistant to President Cassatt had acquired $307,000 in stock of coal companies without cost; that a trainmaster for $500 had purchased coal mine stock which yielded an annual income of $30,000; and that one road foreman was given three hundred shares of the same company stock for nothing. In all these cases the object was to secure not only an ample supply of cars for the favored companies, but perhaps even the denial of suitable service to troublesome competitors. In this regard, the old practices of the Standard Oil Company in the eighties are recalled. Not only, as in the celebrated Rice case,[180] did it demand heavy refunds on its own shipments, but it also compelled the imposition of a surtax on its competitors' traffic which was to be added to its own special allowance.
Yet other means of favoring large shippers at the expense of small ones, are almost impossible to eradicate. Certain of these may be illustrated by recently discovered practices of the Standard Oil Company. They are fully described in a special report of the United States Commissioner of Corporations in 1905. Upon the basis of this evidence, extraordinary efforts were made by the Federal authorities to secure convictions and to impose heavy fines for violation of the Elkins law. But the company escaped heavy penalties, in the main, by reason of legal technicalities. The prosecutions of 1906-1909, however, cannot be regarded as valueless, merely because the company escaped the imposition of fines aggregating millions of dollars. The moral effect of it was thoroughly good; and it is now clear that laws can be so drawn as to apply in future. Nor can any student of the evidence doubt for a moment, that, whether strictly an infraction of the law or not, the net result of these practices was to confer an advantage upon this large shipper, not open to its smaller competitors. Certain of its advantages, such as the ownership of pipe lines from the wells to the seaboard refineries and the strategic location of its plants, are the fruit of great resources and keen business acumen. But other advantages, particularly the relative rates on refined oil from Standard Oil plants and from centres of independent refining, are, according to the report of the Bureau of Corporations, due to pressure brought to bear upon the carriers. Whether they are or not, the result is discriminatory just the same.
The reason for the persistent pressure for low rates on petroleum products is, of course, that the cost of manufacture is so low relatively to the expense of transportation. An ample manufacturing profit is one-half cent per gallon of crude oil; and the average cost of refining does not exceed that amount. Yet a half cent will scarcely pay freight for more than one hundred miles. Hence it follows that for distances greater than this, the question of profit or loss may entirely depend upon the delicate adjustment of the freight rate. In this regard, a great company shipping all over the country has a great advantage over smaller competitors with a strictly local market, in that it can play off one rate against another. Thus, in one notable case, cited by the Bureau of Corporations, the Burlington road gave an absolutely unremunerative rate from the Standard refinery at Whiting near Chicago to East St. Louis, thereby enabling troublesome competition to be subdued; but it was recompensed by the payment of heavier charges on shipments to other points on the Burlington system, where, there being no competition, the high freight rate could be shifted on to the consumer. The Commissioner of Corporations gives one instance on the Northwestern road of a carload rate from Whiting to Milwaukee in order to meet water competition from independents at Toledo, which netted the carrier just ninety-two cents for the carriage of 24,000 pounds of oil a distance of eighty-five miles, with free return of the empty car.
The peculiarity of many of these rate adjustments of the Standard Oil Company of late years was that they were publicly filed; and hence not open to legal attack. This does not however detract in the least from their discriminatory character. One example, right here in New England, now happily corrected, may be cited from the records of the Interstate Commerce Commission for 1906.[181] The southern half of New England was mainly supplied with kerosene from the great Standard refinery at Bayonne, New Jersey. The oil was brought there from the fields by pipe line; and, being refined, was distributed by tank vessels all along the coast, with a short rail haul thereafter to inland points. The total cost to the Standard company was estimated by the Bureau of Corporations at between fourteen and sixteen cents per hundredweight. To meet this, the independent western refiners had to ship all the way by rail. This was more expensive in any event; but for some years they found their handicap greatly increased by the refusal of the New Haven road to join in any joint through rate. The western independents, therefore, had to pay the sum of two local rates, up to and beyond the Hudson river, thereby bringing their transportation up to approximately thirty cents per hundred pounds. In other words, their cost of carriage per gallon was enhanced more than enough to constitute a fair refining profit in itself. The result was the practical exclusion of competition from this source. Fortunately, however, after this investigation the New Haven was ordered to pro-rate with the western roads, thereby overcoming about half of this disability. This case clearly evinces the necessity of effective Federal regulation of such matters as joint rates; and it also shows how possible it may be to so adjust tariffs, openly and even legally, as to favor one shipper over another.
Unlike the preceding instance, most of the Standard's rebates have been, in fact if not technically, secret. Perhaps the most flagrant case occurred in the rates from Whiting to the southeastern states. The Bureau of Corporations estimated that $70,000 a year was saved by this device; and all competition from independent sources was eliminated within that territory. The Illinois Central and Southern roads cross at an obscure point in Tennessee known as Grand Junction. This was made a centre of distribution for the entire South.[182] But the rate under which the oil moved,--and in one given month 169 carloads were thus carried,--was given on a special tariff, publicly filed at Washington, to be sure, but prescribing the rate, not from Whiting but from Dalton, Illinois, to Grand Junction, Tennessee. Dalton was an almost unknown station, near the refinery. Of course any other shipper who happened to know of it, and who happened to have oil to ship from Dalton to Grand Junction, could have had the same rate of thirteen cents a hundred pounds. But he would find it moved over a roundabout route, over four different connecting lines, instead of over the rails of a single company. As against this rate of thirteen cents, the only routes known to the Ohio independent producers charged from nineteen to twenty-nine and one-half cents per hundred pounds. Meantime the Standard's oil was by this devious means reaching every point in the South at prices which no competitor could hope to meet. In one case, the oil going by way of Grand Junction, travelled over one thousand miles when the direct route from Chicago was only a little over five hundred miles. The adjustment was everywhere such that, even on the commonly known tariffs, Whiting enjoyed a special advantage over the sources of independent oil. Atlanta, Georgia, is only 733 miles by short line and 1003 miles by way of Grand Junction from Whiting. Toledo, with its independent refineries, is distant only 687 miles. Yet despite this fact, the commonly known rates were shown to be, from Whiting, 33.2 cents as against 47.5 cents from Toledo. So, even without the Grand Junction contrivance, the Standard was seemingly favored more than enough. It should be added, in conclusion, that while the Grand Junction rate was publicly filed, its discriminatory character stands proven by the fact that all the actual shipments were "blind billed;" that is to say, no local agent knew what was the rate actually paid. Such blind bills of lading are photographically reproduced in the report above named. Moreover the ill repute of the transaction was indicated by the prompt cancellation of the rate when discovered in 1905. But in the meantime it had done its work, and fixed monopoly prices for an indispensable product over a quarter of the territory of the United States.
Aside from the palpably dishonest secret rebating, the real root of the difficulty with many of the other big shippers beside the Standard Oil Company,--and an abuse moreover exceedingly hard to correct,--is the open adjustment of rates from competing centres of manufacture or distribution in such a way as to confer favors. The Bureau of Corporation's report on the Transportation of Petroleum Products deals fully with this. Relative rates, as above stated, always seem to favor Chicago (Whiting) as against the centres of independent refining such as Cleveland, Pittsburg, or Toledo. Formerly, before the great refinery was established in 1890 at Whiting,--which, by the way, produces one-third of all the kerosene used in the United States,--the roads from these centres made joint through rates all over the country. They still do so on many other commodities. But on petroleum products they have been withdrawn. The result is that everywhere, except where they can secure entrance by water, the disability in rates against the independent refiner is most effective. That much the same conditions prevail in other lines of business is affirmed on the highest authority. The Railway Age Gazette has repeatedly protested against the pressure which is now brought to bear against the carriers by such organizations as the Illinois Manufacturers' Association to substitute open but discriminatory local rates for the old secret favors upon which the great shippers throve for so many years. Fortunately, however, this situation in some cases relieves the Federal government of the burden of detection of maladjustments of this sort. For the communities aggrieved are constantly on the watch to protect their interests against rival cities. This factor clearly appears in the sugar and cement lighterage cases in 1908.[183] Carriers at New York in order to equalize rates with carriers serving Philadelphia refineries, grant "accessorial allowances" for the use of lighters or for cartage, in order, as they aver, to overcome the disability against their clients. But Philadelphia shippers are ever on the alert to detect such favors given at New York; and substantially aid the government in eradicating the evil. In the grain elevator allowance cases, likewise, at Omaha and Council Bluffs in 1906-1909, not only unfavored shippers at these points but St. Louis grain merchants as a body, intervened as complainants against the system. The powerful motive of self-interest thus invoked is of great service.
Before dismissing these recent and widely "muck-raked" oil cases, it may not be out of place to mention the new interpretation of the Elkins law which has resulted therefrom. One concerns the definition of separate offences. In the notorious $29,000,000 fine case, the Federal Circuit judge applied the maximum penalty of $20,000 for each offence to each separate carload in a large aggregate of shipments. On review of the case, each separate settlement of freight rates was defined as the unit of an offence. As entire train loads had been forwarded or paid for at one time, this materially reduced the aggregate of possible penalties. And, in the second place, the question of legally provable intent was raised. The turning point in the $29,000,000 fine case, was the ruling of the judge on review, that it was necessary to prove that a standard rate, higher than the one actually paid, had actually been filed at Washington; and that the defendant had knowingly accepted a concession from this figure. These points the government was unable in fact to establish; and this ended the case.[184]
While general rate cutting has been less common since 1900, partly also because the roads were rapidly forming great combinations especially in order to eliminate it, subsequent developments have proved that personal and secret favoritism to large shippers was still very common. Despite all they could do to withstand pressure, traffic managers seemed powerless without the aid of the law. Perhaps the greatest revelation of the extent of personal rebating was afforded by the great Wisconsin investigation under the leadership of Governor La Follette in 1903.[185] The original purpose of this inquiry was fiscal; namely, to examine into the subject of railroad taxation. But its scope speedily widened, and at last skilled accountants were put into the books of all the railroads traversing Wisconsin.
The facts elicited by the Wisconsin investigation were startling. For the years 1897-1903, the direct rebates appearing in the accounts of the Wisconsin lines alone,--taking no account of other forms of rebates such as excessive damage allowances and the like,--were $7,000,000. The Chicago and Northwestern alone had allowed more than half of this amount. And from what is now known of other forms of allowance, the total must have been indeed very great. In one year recently, there was evidence to the effect that rebates on the New York Central lines amounted to $1,000,000. According to its own admission, the Michigan Central road, in 1902-1903, made allowances of $586,000. The rebating to the beef packers, especially on export business during 1902, was notorious. No wonder the progressive railroad leaders desired to put an end to this leakage of revenue. And at their request, the wise legislation known as the Elkins Amendments to the Act to Regulate Commerce was passed in 1903.[186]
The Elkins law of 1903 not only came at a time when the carriers were in need of every cent of revenue to tide over a hard year, but it also followed demonstration under the test of judicial procedure, that convictions for rebating were practically impossible under the old law. To convict for unjust discrimination it was necessary to show, not merely the allowance to one favored shipper, but the fact also had to be proved that no such allowances were made to others on the same sort of traffic under similar conditions. This could scarcely ever be done. In fact, during almost twenty years, there had been less than a score of convictions. Most of the prosecutions had failed utterly. Both government and carriers pressed for legislation. This was promptly given in the Act of February 19, 1903. There were four important features of this law. Railway corporations, not merely individuals as before, were now made directly liable to prosecution and penalties. The tariff filed became the lawful standard. The fact that all shippers got the same low rate was, therefore, no longer a defence. In the third place, the shipper as well as the carrier could be held accountable. In other words, accepting as well as giving rebates, became unlawful. And, finally, jurisdiction was conferred upon the Federal courts to restrain any departure from published rates or any "discrimination forbidden by law" by writ of injunction. This fully legalized a rather doubtful course of procedure to which the Interstate Commerce Commission had been compelled to resort as a last weapon in the rate wars on grain and beef since 1901. It also abolished the penalty of adjustment; imposing fines instead. But this action was subsequently rescinded in the law of 1906.
The record of the vigorous prosecutions against rebating under the Elkins law,[187] affords conclusive evidence, not only as to the widespread extent of the evil, but as to its identification with many of the large industrial combinations. The history of the activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission is to be found in its file of annual reports. But little seems to have been done for the first two years; but great activity was displayed during 1905. The ensuing year was rather notable by reason of the success in securing convictions. Besides the Standard Oil cases, there was collected in fines for rebating between October, 1905, and March, 1907, the sum of $586,000. Several men were sent to jail, for from three to six months. Among the trusts implicated were the beef packers, who have been indefatigable in concocting rebating devices; the tin plate combination; and, most notable of all, the American Sugar Refining Company. Nearly $300,000 in fines was imposed upon this concern alone. The secret allowances in these cases were most ingeniously arranged. Some were "refund of terminal charges;" some were "lighterage demurrage;" some were allowances for damages. Many were paid by drafts instead of checks so as to preclude identification of individuals; some were by special bank account; but the sums involved were very large. Shipments of sugar on which rebates of four to six cents per hundred were given, amounted within a relatively brief period to upwards of 70,000,000 pounds on one line alone. As sugar shipments westbound from New York constituted nearly one-third of the total tonnage, the importance of these prosecutions appear. The following quotation from a letter from an agent of the sugar trust accompanying a claim for overcharge of $6,866 on shipments of syrup, introduced in evidence in one of these cases, aptly describes the situation, both then, now, and always. "We hope to devise some means to enable us to conduct our freight matters with the transportation companies satisfactorily even under the new conditions imposed by the Elkins bill; but there may be some cases that cannot be taken care of, in the event of which we will, like all other shippers, have to take our medicine and look pleasant." The Interstate Commerce Commission reported as to the conditions in 1908 that "many shippers still enjoy illegal advantages." Many convictions were, however, secured. And investigations in California showed the existence of an extensive system of preferential rates.[188] A list of 108 firms was discovered on the Southern Pacific road alone, who were enjoying "special inside rates" which often aggregated $50,000 per month. Many of these assumed the form of refunds upon claims for damages.
Thus the rebate as an evil in transportation, even since amendment of the law in 1906-1910, while under control, is still far from being eradicated. Favoritism lurks in every covert, assuming almost every hue and form. Practices which outwardly appear to be necessary and legitimate, have been shown to conceal special favors of a substantial sort. Among the latest forms, undue extension of credit may be mentioned. It appeared, for instance, in 1910 that the Hocking Valley Railroad was favoring the Sunday Creek Coal Company to the extent of credit for transportation on its books to the amount of $2,400,000.[189] Another device which amounted to favoritism whether so intended or not, has been brought into court upon prosecution of the so-called Beef Trust. Substantial concessions in the rate from Kansas City to various foreign countries prevailed by reason of the fact that long time contracts for shipments at an established rate continued after a new higher general tariff had been put into effect. This increase of rates in general, leaving the trust rates at the old figure, of course created an undue and unlawful preference.[190] The chapter might be further amplified by details concerning "substitution of tonnage at transit points;"[191] excessive allowance for claims, and, as in a recent important case against the New York Central, exorbitant rates paid for advertising in a theatrical publication, in order to secure transportation for an itinerant troupe of travelling players.[192]
The extreme subtlety of personal favoritism was recently brought to light in connection with the selling price of coal in the little town of Durham, North Carolina.[193] Complaint was entered that a certain retailer was charging but five dollars a ton while his competitors were unable to dispose of theirs at a profit for less than six dollars. The explanation offered, that this person employing no bookkeeper and, paying no rent, was enabled to do this because of these savings, proved inadequate. Investigation developed the fact that no direct preference from railroads existed, but that there were, nevertheless, various peculiar features as to division of rates which invited further examination. Thus, for example, while the Norfolk & Western received $30.80 for hauling a carload of coal 160 miles, the Durham & South Carolina Railroad received $24.80 for hauling the same car one mile. This little railroad was owned by a lumber company which seemed in effect to have set up the defendant coal merchant in business. An arrangement between this little switching road and the Seaboard Air Line, as well as the Norfolk & Western, also favored the Durham & Southern. The key to the situation lay in the fact that the Dukes,--powerful financial interests controlling the American Tobacco Company, the Southern Power Company and large cotton mills,--also controlled the Durham & Southern through the lumber company. The Seaboard Air Line, therefore, when it gave to this little switching road for a twenty-mile haul, about forty per cent. of its division on through business, surreptitiously conferred a heavy bonus upon its little connection. It must have lost money under such a division of rates. The only conclusion possible is that this little railroad was specially favored in order to purchase the goodwill of financiers controlling a large traffic in other lines of business. The rebate, however, was not given to the American Tobacco Company, but constituted a comfortable profit "on the side" for powerful interests in its management.
The elevation cases concerning the legitimacy of a special payment for unloading grain in private elevators, have been under dispute for years. Their validity has recently been affirmed by the Supreme Court in an important decision in 1911.[194] This litigation illustrates the difficulty of defining rebates as an expression of personal favoritism. In 1899, the Union Pacific Railroad made a contract with Peavey & Company at Council Bluffs to erect an elevator and to transfer grain for a charge of one and one-quarter cents a hundred pounds. This arrangement was objected to by competing railroads on the ground that it gave compensation to a private concern, engaged in general grain business for the handling of its own property. The Union Pacific insisted that the expedient was necessary and proper as a means for promptly unloading its cars at Omaha. The Commission, after investigation, sanctioned the contract. In 1907, the matter again came before the Commission upon complaint of other railroads competing with the Union Pacific along the Missouri river. It was alleged that the continuance of the elevator allowance by the Union Pacific would virtually compel all other roads to make similar allowances. Still the Commission adhered to its former conclusion that undue discrimination did not result. The practice, however, gradually spread until all the roads at Missouri river points put in an allowance of three-fourths of one cent as an elevator charge. This brought forth a complaint from the lines at St. Louis that traffic was being diverted from that point as a result; and the Commission, once more considering the matter, held that the practice was prejudicial to public interest. Conditions, in fact, had changed, mainly through the increase of through shipments to the East without transfer at the Missouri river. The Commission, therefore, held that when such transfer took place, it was for the accommodation of local grain merchants, who ought to pay for the service rendered. At this stage of the proceedings, the matter went to the Supreme Court of the United States upon appeal. The decision finally upheld the Commission, in holding that the payment of an elevation allowance was not unlawful, but that if paid to one elevator, it must be paid to all. The bearing of this case upon the larger issue, of payments by railroads for special services rendered by, shippers cannot fail to be of great importance in the future.
The use of the industrial railroad as a means of preferential treatment still occasions difficulty.[195] The case is simple where but one shipper makes use of the terminal plant; but where a number of shippers may utilize it jointly, it becomes difficult to draw the line between pro-rating allowances and actual rebates. The Manufacturers' Railroad Company, with twenty miles of track, four locomotives and one hundred and ten employees, serves a considerable manufacturing section in South St. Louis. A majority of the stock of this terminal railroad is held by persons controlling the Anheuser-Busch Brewery. The enormous traffic of this concern, equal to about one-thirtieth of the total tonnage of St. Louis, is handled over the line of the Manufacturers' Railway. Almost nine-tenths of its business consists of shipments of beer; but in 1910 some 5,424 carloads belonging to other patrons moved over its rails. For this terminal service the Anheuser-Busch Company, through the Manufacturers' Railway, got a very substantial allowance for the service rendered. For example, in one month on ten carloads of beer, the Louisville & Nashville allowed $45 out of a total revenue of $391.60 for moving the traffic something less than four thousand feet. The disparity is obvious between this allowance and the balance remaining as compensation for moving the traffic 477 miles, including three first-class railroad tolls and terminal charges at the other end.[196]
A prime difficulty is to determine whether unduly low commodity rates amount practically to special favors granted to large shippers. Much evidence recently tends to show that the trusts enjoy advantages of this sort not extended to other competitors. The Steel Corporation, through its ownership of railroads and steamships, certainly has a great advantage over its rivals.[197] But other trusts not controlling common carriers of their own, are also accorded what seem to be unduly low rates upon their products. Recent evidence before the Interstate Commerce Commission seems to show that sugar, beef, and coffee do not bear their proper share of transportation costs.[198] Copper, the product of a powerful trust, enjoys a lower ton mile rate than grain,--a rate, despite its high intrinsic value, actually below that on soft coal.[199] The discrimination is too palpable to be passed over without explanation.
From the survey of rebating and rate wars,--which latter of course afford the most favored soil in which personal favoritism may flourish,--one cannot avoid the conclusion that a great improvement in conditions has been brought about. The strengthened arm of the Federal government has come to the support of the carriers; and has assisted them to a material enhancement of their revenues, by putting a stop to serious leakages in income. But the carriers could undoubtedly do much on their own account, could they be granted the right to make traffic agreements, subject always, of course, to the approval and supervision of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Whether Congress will ever permit this, remains to be seen. The most important result of all this Federal activity so far, has been the moral stimulus toward fair business dealing which has been given. Thousands of shippers today, quite apart from the fear of fines or imprisonment, would disdain to ask or accept favors which a decade since would have been regarded as entirely proper. No one can doubt that the morale of business is distinctly higher than it used to be. Could such higher standards become universal, the Department of Justice would be relieved of a substantial part of its present duties.
FOOTNOTES:
[162] 14 I. C. C. Rep., 250. Upheld by the Supreme Court in 1911; 219 U. S., 498. Also 23 Idem, 535.
[163] Circular Letters of the Chicago Bureau of Car Performances; undated.
[164] The latter half of chap. XII.
[165] The chapter on reorganizations in vol. II will afford other instances with full references. Com. & Fin. Chron., LIX, p. 232.
[166] 55th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. doc., 39, p. 29.
[167] Ann. Rep., I. C. C., 1896, p. 82: and 1897, p. 53. Fine cases in 1 I. C. C. Rep., 633-656.
[168] Investigation of grain rates at Missouri river points; 54th Cong., 2nd Sess., Sen. doc. 115, pp. 17-22, etc.
[169] 167 U. S. Rep., 633.
[170] P. 211, infra.
[171] On private car lines, Columbia University Studies, etc., LXXXI, 1908, p. 185. J. W. Midgley's Circular Letters as chief of the Bureau of Car Performances in 1901, costing him his position, by the way, are most significant. Car service reform resulted nevertheless. Cf. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1904, p. 299. See pp. 96 and 140, supra.
[172] U. S. Bureau of Corp., Rep. on Trans, of Petroleum, pp. 36, 60, 81, 88.
[173] 10 I. C. C. Rep., 1, 148, 385 and 661: 18th Ann. Rep., I.C.C., 19 and 42: Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, pp. 2424-2495. Later cases discussed at p. 212, infra.
[174] P. 212, infra.
[175] P. 209, infra.
[176] 11th Ann. Rep., I.C.C.; 16th Idem, p. 13; and 21st Idem, p. 14.
[177] Bureau of Corp., Rep. on Trans, of Petroleum, 1905, p. 105 et seq.
[178] 11 I.C.C. Rep., 438; Cf. 13 Idem, 70; and 19 Idem, 356.
[179] Report on Discriminations and Monopolies in Coal and Oil; Jan. 25, 1907, pp. 1-81.
[180] Ripley, Railway Problems, chap. II, fully described.
[181] 11 I.C.C. Rep., 558; U. S. Bureau Corp'ns Rep., p. 148.
[182] Routes shown by the map on p. 647, infra.
[183] 20 I. C. C. Rep., 200, with dissenting opinion. Reviewed by the U. S. Commerce Court 1912; Railway Age Gazette, chap. LII, p. 1550. P. 586, infra.
[184] U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, decided March 12, 1902. The history is in Ann. Rep., I.C.C., 1907, p. 114; 1908 pp. 26 and 36; and 1909, p. 26.
[185] Never published. Outlined in Wisconsin Assembly Journal, 1905, chap. II, pp. 1463-1497.
[186] Cf. p. 492, infra.
[187] Cf. 59th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Doc. 526.
[188] 13 I.C.C. Rep., 123.
[189] Ann. Rep., I.C.C., 1910, p. 10.
[190] Idem, 1909, p. 32. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, April 29, 1911, Ann. Rep., I.C.C., 1908, p. 32.
[191] 18 I.C.C. Rep., 280. Cf. p. 401, infra.
[192] Boston Transcript, Feb. 20, 1912.
[193] 22 I.C.C. Rep., 51.
[194] 222 U. S., 42. The system is described in the Railway Age Gazette, June 4, 1909.
[195] 21 I.C.C. Rep., 304. Compare also before the U. S. Commerce Court; the Stock Yards case, 192 Fed. Rep., 330; the California Switching case, 188 Fed. Rep., 229; and the Crane Iron Works case, No. 55, April session, 1912. The tap-line decision, 23 I.C.C., 277, most fully discussed the general policy to be observed toward industrial roads in the lumber business. Cf. also the use of boat lines. 23 Idem, 358.
[196] Railway Age Gazette, LII, pp. 269 and 340.
[197] Evidence before the Stanley House Committee on Steel Corporation, Feb. 28, 1912, p. 3667; and Bureau of Corporations on U. S. Steel Corporation, II, p. 72.
[198] American Economic Review, 1911, p. 789.
[199] S. O. Dunn, American Transportation Question, pp. 62, 81.
VII. LOCAL DISCRIMINATION
Concrete instances, 215.--Hadley's oyster case not conclusive, 217.--Two variants: lower long-haul rates by the roundabout route, as in the Hillsdale, Youngstown, and some Southern cases, 221; or by the direct route, as in the Nashville-Chattanooga and other southern cases, 225.--Complicating influence of water transportation, 232.--Market competition from various regions, a different case, 234.--The basing point (southern) and basing line (Missouri river) systems, 238.--Their inevitable instability and probable ultimate abandonment, 242.--Postage-stamp rates, illustrated by transcontinental tariffs, 245.--Which line makes the rate? 255.--Cost not distance, determines, 256.--Fixed charges v. operating expenses, 257.--Proportion of local business, 259.--Volume and stability of traffic important, 261.--Generally the short line rules, but many exceptions occur, 263.
Any unreasonable departure from a tariff graded in some proportion according to distance is known as local discrimination. It constitutes one of the most difficult and perplexing problems in transportation. Personal discrimination now happily having been practically eliminated since the enactment of the Elkins Amendments to the Act to Regulate Commerce, this issue of local discrimination under the rehabilitated long and short haul clause, has recently assumed an added significance.
A merchant of Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania, purchased a carload of potatoes at Rochester, New York, and had the freight bill made for a delivery to Philadelphia, because the freight to Philadelphia was less than it was to Wilkesbarre, which is 143 miles nearer. He stopped the potatoes at Wilkesbarre, unloaded them, and paid the freight. A few days later he received a bill from the Lehigh Valley Company for twelve dollars additional freight. If the potatoes had gone to Philadelphia, he would have paid forty-eight dollars freightage. As they stopped at Wilkesbarre, he had to pay sixty dollars; that is, twelve dollars for not hauling the carload 143 miles.[200]
A merchant in Montgomery, Alabama, shipped two carloads of fruit jars from Crawfordsville, Indiana, to Montgomery. He shipped them to Mobile and then paid the local rate from Mobile back, those fruit jars going through Montgomery on the way out. By having them hauled 350 miles farther, he saved seventy-five dollars on the two carloads.
On first-class goods, at one time, the rate from Louisville to Montgomery, was $1.26 per hundredweight. On to Mobile, 180 miles further south, it was only ninety cents. In the same territory the rate on kerosene oil from Cincinnati at times has been three times as much to interior points as to New Orleans, three times as far. West of the Missouri river and in the Rocky mountain area similar complaints are common. Denver, Colorado, pays $1.79 per hundredweight on cotton piece goods, in small lots, hauled 2,000 miles from Boston; while the rate to San Francisco, 1,400 miles further away, on the same line, is only $1.50. This discrepancy is even greater in wholesale rates. No carload rating is given to Denver; while for similar shipments to the coast the rate is only one dollar per hundredweight. In the opposite direction, sugar is carried from San Francisco through Denver to Kansas City for sixty-five cents per hundredweight, as compared with a rate of one dollar if the sugar is stopped at Denver. Smaller places in the West afford equally striking instances. The rate on rope from San Francisco to Independence, Kansas, is seventy-five cents; while the same goods are hauled on through Independence, Kansas, much farther, to Missouri river points for sixty cents per hundred pounds. Wichita, Kansas, complains that cotton piece goods from New York by way of Galveston are rated at $1.36; while by the same route Kansas City, 225 miles longer haul by that route, the charge is only ninety-three cents. The Southwestern Lumberman's Association complains,--
"that a train of cars of lumber starts from Camden or other common point in Texas via Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, and one car is dropped off in Oklahoma at 27-1/2 cents per 100 pounds; one each also at Wichita and Emporia, Kansas, at 27-1/2 cents per 100 pounds; one at Kansas City at 23 cents, and two cars also set off this same train at Kansas City, destined for Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska, at 23 and 24 cents per 100 pounds, respectively. The balance of this train, now at Kansas City, runs on to Chicago, and 24 cents per 100 pounds is the charge then for most of the train which is left there.... Why should builders of homes in Wichita and Emporia, Kansas, pay higher freight than builders in Kansas City, Omaha, and Chicago when using yellow pine from Texas?"[201]
Such instances as these might be multiplied indefinitely. They are often striking in character. The first impression is of intolerable abuse. The simplest tenets of justice and fair dealing appear to be violated. Careful analysis should, however, always be made before drawing such conclusions. Railroad practice seldom departs so flagrantly from the fundamental consideration of cost of service without very substantial economic justification.
The reasoning underlying local discrimination is admirably set forth by President Hadley in the following passage from his Railroad Transportation:--[202]
"On the coast of Delaware, a few years ago, there was a place which we shall call X, well suited for oyster-growing, but which sent very few oysters to market, because the railroad rates were so high as to leave no margin of profit. The local oyster-growers represented to the railroad that if the rates were brought down to one dollar per hundred pounds, the business would become profitable and the railroad could be sure of regular shipments at that price. The railroad men looked into the matter. They found that the price of oysters in the Philadelphia market was such that the local oystermen could pay one dollar per hundred pounds to the railroad and still have a fair profit left. If the road tried to charge more, it would so cut down the profit as to leave men no inducement to enter the business. That is, those oysters would bear a rate of one dollar per hundred, and no more. Further, the railroad men found that if they could get every day a carload, or nearly a carload, at this rate, it would more than cover the expense of hauling an extra car by quick train back and forth every day, with the incidental expenses of interest and repairs. So they put the car on, and were disappointed to find that the local oyster-growers could only furnish oysters enough to fill the car about half full. The expense to the road of running it half full was almost as great as of running it full; the income was reduced one-half. They could not make up by raising the rates, for these were as high as the traffic would bear. They could not increase their business much by lowering rates. The difficulty was not with the price charged, but with the capacity of the local business. It seemed as if this special service must be abandoned.
"One possibility suggested itself. At some distance beyond X, the terminus of this railroad, was another oyster-growing place, Y, which sent its oysters to market by another route. The supply at Y was very much greater than at X. The people at Y were paying a dollar a hundred to send their oysters to market. It would hardly cost twenty cents to send them from Y to X. If, then, the railroad from X to Philadelphia charged but seventy-five cents a hundred on oysters which came from Y, it could easily fill its car full. This was what they did. They then had half a carload of oysters grown at X, on which they charged a dollar, and half a carload from Y on which they charged seventy-five cents for exactly the same service.
"Of course there was a grand outcry at X. Their trade was discriminated against in the worst possible way--so they said--and they complained to the railroad. But the railroad men fell back on the logic of facts. The points were as follows: 1. A whole carload at seventy-five cents would not pay expenses of handling and moving. 2. At higher rates than seventy-five cents they could not get a whole carload, but only half a carload; and half a carload at a dollar rate (the highest charge the article would bear) would not pay expenses. Therefore, 3. On any uniform rate for everybody, the road must lose money, and 4. They would either be compelled to take the oyster car away altogether, or else get what they could at a dollar, and fill up at seventy-five cents. There was no escape from this reasoning; and the oyster men of X chose to pay the higher rate rather than lose the service altogether."
The logic of this oyster case seems convincing in its simplicity. But it presents more complications than appear at the outset.
First of all, what is the nature of the competition at the more distant point which is alleged to "compel" the lower rate? Is it merely of rival routes or of competing markets? It will be advisable to keep the two distinct so far as possible. Under the first heading, competition of routes, the subjoined sketches represent two possible situations. In both instances, however, Y, enjoying the lower rate, is more distant from Philadelphia than X. The difference between the two arises from the fact that in the one case X is nearer Philadelphia than Y on a roundabout line; while in the other X is actually nearer than Y by the shortest direct route. We may safely assume that the compelling competition alleged at Y as justifying the lower rate is by rail; as, the commodity being a marine bivalve, both places presumably enjoy equal facilities for water carriage. At all events, assuming that we have to do with competing rail routes alone, what differences obtain between the two sets of circumstances above sketched? Not insignificant inequalities in the length or power of the two routes are implied by the diagrams. They are supposed to represent substantially different lines, which may, for the purpose of the argument, be denominated strong, natural, or standard, and weak, unnatural, or abnormal, respectively, so far as the particular traffic in hand is concerned. That this distinction is not irrelevant, but frequently of determinant force, is shown by an analysis of concrete cases which have arisen for adjudication.
This proposition is clear beyond dispute. The actual cost of service, which fixes an irreducible minimum rate between Y and Philadelphia, is less on the short line than by the roundabout one. For either road to accept less than the portion of the cost traceable to this particular traffic, that is to say, the extra cost incident to its acceptance, is economically inconceivable. From this it follows, other conditions being equal, that the shortest line between Y and Philadelphia rules the rate in the last instance. This is normally the case. The roundabout route thereafter merely accepts the rate thus compelled. To permit the roundabout line to rule the minimum rate would not only violate a fundamental principle of operation: it would inevitably lead to chaos. The analogy with cut-throat competition in business is obvious. It is equally plain that the mere acceptance of a short line rate by a roundabout road, so long as this rate is adequate to yield some profit over the extra cost, while of advantage to some, may not work positive injury to any one. This condition normally corresponds to the state of affairs represented by diagram A. The nearer point, X, as Hadley avers, has no just grievance against Y because the latter has the good fortune to have a direct service to Philadelphia at a low rate. For Y to withdraw shipments from the line via X might even destroy the only chance of X for a market. It would also deprive Y of whatever benefit it might have derived from competition either of routes or of facilities. Of course, we have expressly omitted market competition as a factor, reserving it for separate treatment. Yet one objection arises. Normally, the direct line ought to maintain a tariff conforming in some degree to the distance principle. The roundabout line can compete at Y only by a violation of it, unless, indeed, its local tariffs be graded much more gradually. In other words, its progression towards the maximum must be distributed over a much longer line. Even this would, on Hadley's statement of fact, eliminate X from the Philadelphia market. Such reduction of local rates upon the roundabout route would in turn discriminate against places like Z on the direct line, equally distant with X from Philadelphia. For the latter places would necessarily be assessed at a higher rate per ton-mile.[203] This would constitute another form of local discrimination, which will be discussed in due time. There is, therefore, at best, only a choice of adjustments, either of which leads to some form of inequality. But, upon the whole, balancing the evil with the good, the first variant of our oyster case appears to be best solved by according all shippers at Y a somewhat lower rate than X enjoys.
Conditions corresponding to diagram A have frequently given rise to complaints before courts and administrative tribunals. An interesting illustration is afforded by the Hillsdale ice case in Michigan.[204] Ice was moved from this town to Springfield and Columbus, two neighboring Ohio cities, over several different routes. (See map on next page.) To Columbus the shortest road was by the Hocking Valley Railroad directly through Toledo. Another route by way of Sandusky existed; and even a third through Sandusky, thence over to Springfield, and in by the side door, so to speak, to Columbus. This last routing was due to the fact that the Big Four road from Sandusky diagonally across to Springfield had no access to Columbus except through a branch line from Springfield. This last-named zigzag route was 295 miles in length as against 190 miles by the direct line through Toledo. To Springfield, on the other hand, no direct route from Hillsdale existed; but freight might move either via Sandusky by the Big Four road or through Sandusky and around by way of Columbus. The shortest of any of these lines to Springfield, however, was twenty-nine miles longer than the shortest line to Columbus. This established Columbus, therefore, as normally the nearer point. Complaint arose from the fact that ice carried over the zigzag route to Columbus actually passed through Springfield and forty-five miles beyond to reach its destination. For such shipments over the Big Four road, Springfield instead of Columbus was the nearer point. But, contrariwise, for ice coming to Springfield through Columbus, the latter in turn became the intermediate point.[205] The specific complaint was that the rate by all routes to Springfield was one dollar per ton, while to Columbus it was only eighty cents. Originally, the rate was higher ($1.25 per ton), but was the same to both points. Is this a case of local discrimination or not?
The Big Four road operating through Springfield answered that it was not responsible for the eighty cent rate to Columbus; that this was made by the direct line; and that it obviously must meet this rate or withdraw from the ice business. It alleged, moreover, that the rate of one dollar was reasonable in itself as compared with other rates in the same territory, and was in fact substantially less than it formerly was; nor would its withdrawal from Columbus ice business evidently be of any advantage whatever to Springfield, but would indeed deprive it of some small contribution to joint expenses of operation on all its tonnage. No evidence being offered that Springfield was positively injured by this adjustment, the Commission properly dismissed the complaint.
The distinctive feature of this class of cases, as has been said, is that the intermediate point preferring the complaint is always on a roundabout route.[206] St. Cloud, Minnesota, and Wichita, Kansas, whose contentions are described hereafter in detail, were thus situated. The so-called "rare and peculiar" case of Youngstown, Ohio, cited in the original Louisville and Nashville decision of 1889, was in no sense different. It was a case of pure competition of routes.[207] Traffic to New York was starting its journey from Pittsburg, over the rails of the same company, in exactly opposite directions. Some of it went east by the direct line; while other freight first moved due west, thence north, by way of Youngstown, Ohio, until it reached the main line at Erie, which took it on to New York. This traffic, therefore, described three sides of a rectangle in reaching its destination, traversing a route 172 miles longer than by the direct line. The issue was raised by a demand for as low a rate to New York from Youngstown as Pittsburg enjoyed, on the ground that it was nearer New York by this indirect line; Pittsburg traffic, in other words, passing through it en route to the seaboard. The reply, of course, was that, although nearer by an indirect road, it was more distant by the natural and shortest route, and consequently should pay more for the service. What the roundabout line was really demanding was permission to compete at Pittsburg for New York business, without being compelled to reduce its local rates from intermediate points like Youngstown. In other words, the long line was demanding exemption from the long and short haul clause, while the direct short line conformed to it. Without such exemption it could not continue to reach out for Pittsburg business, as the loss incident to reduction of its local rates would outweigh the profit in the competitive tonnage.
One side of the Savannah Freight Bureau Fertilizer case[208]--namely, the complaints of local stations on a roundabout road--brings it within our first category. The roundabout line from Charleston to Valdosta, shown upon the map at p. 648, was 413 miles long as against a direct route of only 273 miles. Kathleen, Georgia, is only 288 miles out from Charleston on this indirect line,--approximately the same distance as Valdosta, which thus corresponds to Y in the oyster case. Yet Kathleen paid a rate of $3.32 per ton on fertilizer from Charleston as against $2.48 charged to Valdosta, 125 miles beyond. But this excess distance is by an indirect route. Most of the notable English cases concerning local discrimination appear to be of the same stamp.[209] The complaints of a number of smaller places in the St. Paul-Milwaukee territory, like Cannon Falls, Lacrosse, and Northfield some years ago, reduce in part to the same thing.[210] Whether the Troy, Alabama, and Wichita, Kansas, cases belong here or in the next group is indeterminate, owing to the difficulty of comparing conditions of carriage by rail and by water, respectively.
On the other hand, the set of circumstances shown in diagram B (page 219, supra) is of quite a different sort. The justification for the local discrimination is much less clear. Here, as before, the distant point Y enjoys a lower rate than X because of the presence of competition; but it is important to inquire both as to the nature and the amount of it. In the first case, competitive traffic from Y was extra rather than normal in character, so far as the line serving X was concerned. It was relatively small in amount. Whatever surplus revenue resulted from it aided the local tariffs, including those at X, in supporting the burden of fixed expenses. This burden they were bound to bear entirely in the absence of competitive business picked up at Y. The distant point Y of course had no complaint in any event, and the chances are that X was benefited, as we have seen. But in the second case the great bulk of the traffic from Y belongs naturally to the direct line through X. It constitutes the mainstay of its business. The direct line, unlike the roundabout one, cannot withdraw from the field when rates become unremunerative. It is in this business passing directly through X to stay. Nine-tenths of the Y traffic, perhaps, moves through X in this latter case; in the former one, one-tenth would perhaps measure the proportion of the indirect line. Under this assumption, it is obvious that the question of the level of rates at Y, as determined by the presence of competition, assumes a ninefold greater importance in the eyes of X, so far as the effect upon local rates in supporting the fixed and joint expenses of the road is concerned. In any event, even the line operating under a disability supposedly earns some small net return on competitive traffic, else it would withdraw from the field. This it is in fact free to do at any time; and, however small the net return, it is at least all gain. On the other hand, when the net return on a large volume of its natural business becomes unduly small, the financial stability of the direct line is put in jeopardy. The danger of local rates (as at X) being actually enhanced or at least prevented from reduction, because of an unduly low level of competitive rates at more distant points, is thus much greater when X is a way station on a direct line than when, as in our first instance, it is an intermediate point on a roundabout route. For this reason the direct line through X is at the outset put to a justification of its local tariffs, as to whether they are inherently reasonable or not; first, by comparison with the general level throughout the surrounding territory; and, secondly, as yielding a return on the capital actually invested. This seems to have been the line of reasoning which the Interstate Commerce Commission adopted in the recent important Spokane, Washington, cases.[211] The low through rates to the Pacific coast were established as reasonable by the competition of sea routes round the Horn, and especially by the newly-opened Tehuantepec Railroad. The only ground for finding there was discrimination against Spokane was an inherent unreasonableness in its rate. This was, in fact, the outcome; the decision being rendered notable, further, by reason of the prominence given to the valuation of the railroads' property as a basis of judgment.
The first important point to be established, then, in this second variety of the oyster case was as to the relative distribution of traffic from the more distant competitive point by the several lines open to it. The next concerned the absolute reasonableness of the rate at the intermediate point. In the third place, we must inquire whether the rate at the more distant point may not be unreasonably low. This was a contingency not possible, as we have just seen, in the Spokane case. But others may be different in this regard. One is thus forced to consider the effect of the presence of roundabout competitive lines upon the level of rates at the more distant point. An indirect rival road may, as in the St. Cloud case, carry only seventy-three carloads a day as compared with a daily movement of one thousand cars by the direct lines. On the other hand, as in the Savannah Freight Bureau case, Valdosta, Georgia, may receive nine-tenths of its supply of fertilizer by indirect roads. But in any event it is the potential, not the actual, movement of tonnage, which may count in the long run. It is indisputable that the short line between two points never pares its rates down to an irreducible minimum except under compulsion. The presence of a roundabout route affords just this pressure to reduction. Even allowing that in the last analysis the long line will strike bed-rock of no profit first, it is indisputable that such lines frequently, instead of merely meeting rates made for them by the direct routes, seek to divert business by actually undercutting those rates. Having only a small share of the tonnage, they take risks which would be fatal to others. To transport at an absolute loss is of course no more defensible than the argument of the merchant that the only way to compensate for selling goods below cost was to enlarge the volume of his business. But, of course, there is always the chance that, by enlarging this volume sufficiently, operating expenses may be so far cut down that a loss may be transformed into a profit. The diversion of enough traffic from the direct railroad line to accomplish this end would, of course, reduce the volume of its traffic and thereby unduly burden it, to the manifest injury of all local points like X.
Suggestive illustrations of lower rates at the more distant point than are under the circumstances actually "compelled" by competition of routes are to be had. In a recent case[212] the rates on bananas from Charleston, South Carolina, to Danville and Lynchburg, Virginia, respectively, were called in question. The traffic moved through Danville on its way to Lynchburg, sixty-six miles beyond, at a rate of forty-three cents to Danville as compared with a rate of twenty cents to Lynchburg. The reason for the low rate at Lynchburg was the presence of a rival route,--bananas, coming in through Baltimore. But the lowest rate "compelled" by this competition was in fact thirteen cents higher than the Danville line charged at Lynchburg. In other words, the long-distance rate was that much lower than it need have been. This instance is analogous in another way to our oyster case, inasmuch as the demand at Danville being limited, one-half of the same carload paid the Danville rate of forty-three cents, while the other half went on at the lower rate of twenty cents enjoyed at the more distant point. It is in this connection, of rates unduly low at so-called competitive points, that the partial weakness in the railroad arguments in many of the southern basing point cases appears. Since the Supreme Court of the United States had held that competition at the more distant point justified its lower rates, the Interstate Commerce Commission was powerless to give effect to whatever opinion it might entertain that at times it is neither water nor commercial competition which actually brings about the low rate at the basing point; but merely a consensus of opinion among carriers that that place will respond quickly enough to favors granted, to make it worth while to try the experiment.[213] This conviction is vastly strengthened, of course, since entire monopoly among all the southern railroad lines has become an established fact. It is an absurdity to speak longer of any competition between rail carriers existing in a large part of this territory.[214]
Actual illustrations of this second variant of the oyster case, free still from the complications of competition of markets, are not common, but occasionally arise. Chattanooga, which aspires to be the commercial and industrial centre of eastern Tennessee, is about 150 miles southeast of Nashville, as shown by the accompanying sketch map. Owing to the southwestern trend of the Appalachian Mountain valleys, it is only 846 miles from New York by rail, almost as the crow flies; while Nashville has access to the North principally through Ohio river gateways, over lines, at the best, 1,058 miles in length. By these lines, therefore, the latter is 212 miles further from New York than Chattanooga. But the two competitive places are only 151 miles apart; whence it follows that the shortest possible all-rail line from New York to Nashville, swings around to the south by way of Chattanooga. The situation is complicated by other combined rail and water routes from New York through Norfolk, Savannah, and Charleston. But all these lines also reach Nashville by coming up through Chattanooga. From every point of view, therefore, Chattanooga, on the basis of mileage, is the nearer point to New York--151 miles nearer by the direct line, all rail; equally nearer by all combined rail and water routes: and 212 miles nearer than is Nashville by the roundabout all-rail lines through Louisville or Cincinnati. Its location corresponds to X in our second variation of the oyster case; namely, an intermediate point on the direct line to another more distant point Y, which latter enjoys the competition of more roundabout routes.
The disability against Chattanooga, against which it protested, was substantial.[215] Its first-class rate from New York was $1.14 per hundred pounds, while Nashville paid only ninety-one cents. On various commodities the Chattanooga rates were from twenty-five to seventy-five per cent, above those to Nashville. The effect of such differences upon jobbing business at the places intermediate between Nashville and Chattanooga is shown by the subjoined chart. The two upper sloping lines represent the through rates from New York to each distributing centre, plus the local rates out to way stations. Even at Bolivar, the nearest place to Chattanooga, the Nashville combination is slightly lower than that based upon Chattanooga. This disability steadily increases as Nashville is approached, rates from Chattanooga rising while those from Nashville fall, until at Kimbro the jobber located at Chattanooga--the nearer point to New York on the direct line--must lay down his New York goods at a rate of sixty-three cents a hundred pounds higher than his competitor in Nashville enjoys. This adjustment is partly an historical product. Nashville, by the old river routes from Pittsburg down the Ohio and up the Cumberland, was formerly nearer the Eastern cities than Chattanooga. Then, the trunk lines through Cincinnati with heavy traffic and low rates shortened the distance; and, finally, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, supplanting the river routes, undertook to build up Nashville as against Cincinnati and Louisville. Historically, on the other hand, Chattanooga was long an unimportant point. It took, as it still does, the same rate from the North as prevailed at some twenty-three other southern cities from Atlanta to Memphis. Here is the crux of the difficulty. The rates at Nashville must be assumed as historically fixed. Whatever remedy may apply must come from a reduction of the rates to Chattanooga, the nearer point. This place has now become an important centre, the meeting point of a number of rail and water lines. The long prevalent grouping of all the southern cities with equal rates from the North must be replaced by a system of differentials, if the discrimination against Chattanooga is ever to be ameliorated.
By this time it will be observed that in the discussion of the Chattanooga case we have drifted far beyond the mere competition of rival routes. Commercial competition, which affords the justification for grouping all these twenty-three important southern cities together, is a topic to be treated elsewhere by itself. The difficulty in many of these cases is to distinguish between the really strongest line and the one which is merely the shortest. Upon this point one's decision of the Chattanooga case might actually depend. The Louisville & Nashville contends that Nashville even today is, from an operating point of view, nearer New York than Chattanooga, although the distance is 212 miles more. All the trunk lines compete at Ohio river points, and bring them relatively much closer to New York. The density of traffic on these lines is far heavier than on the air line to Chattanooga.
It happens that Chattanooga meets this allegation of greater trunk line density and cheapness by proof of the still greater economy of operation by the coastwise steamers to southern ports, traffic coming thence north by rail through Chattanooga. The appearance of water competition in any of these cases always introduces an almost insuperable difficulty in the way of comparison of long and short lines. Shipment by vessel differs from rail carriage, primarily in the relatively high terminal costs, the absence of all maintenance of way costs, and the low cost of actual propulsion. With a cargo once securely stowed, the distance traversed by a vessel is of relatively little importance, much less so than in the case of carriage by rail. A powerful factor in determining water rates, moreover, especially by sea, is the absence of local traffic. Wharves and terminals being expensive to build and maintain, and the method of loading in a ship's hold not being conducive to ease in access or assortment, vessels are confined largely to bulk traffic at a few important points. The expenses of operation must be more uniformly distributed over the cargo than in the case of a trainload. The water line, therefore, is deprived of one advantage in cutting rates. It cannot, so readily as a railroad, recoup itself for losses on competitive business or at competitive points by falling back upon its earnings from way stations.
From all these considerations it not infrequently comes about that, unlike carriage by rail, the longest way round may indeed be the shortest way home. This is clear in the highly involved Wichita, Kansas, cases.[216] Wichita, a commercial centre of southern Kansas, is 200 odd miles southwest of Kansas City. Its all-rail rates from the East are higher than to Kansas City. Yet by the water route from New York to Galveston and thence up by rail, as compared with Kansas City, it is a nearer and intermediate point. The Interstate Commerce Commission well expresses the difficulty:
"It is quite probable that the actual cost of transporting cotton piece goods from New York to Wichita via Galveston does not exceed that of carrying them from New York to Kansas City via the cheapest route. The all-rail haul is to the latter point 1,300 miles and over. The ocean and rail movement involves a rail carriage of from 1,100 to 1,300 miles, depending upon the route selected. If the goods move through some Gulf port, there is a rail carriage of not less than 850 miles. If, therefore, the rate were to be measured by the expense of the service, it is probable that Wichita would today enjoy as low a rate as the Missouri river."
The Wichita complication, moreover, works both ways. Wichita and Kansas City form two angles of a narrow triangle with its apex at the Gulf ports; but the distance from Kansas City is longer than from Wichita. Railroad competition brought it about, however, that the rate on export grain from Wichita via Kansas City to the Gulf came to equal the rate from Kansas City to the Gulf via Wichita. But the former was a much longer and more roundabout haul; and, moreover, was less than the shorter haul rate from Wichita to the Gulf direct. The analogy to the Hillsdale case, above-described, will appear clearly on inspection of the map.
Summarizing the results so far reached, in all that concerns the two sorts of cases considered in the preceding paragraphs, our conclusion is that, when competition by rail at the distant point is alone present, and when the nearer point is on a roundabout route, a railway "is entitled to carry the traffic past X to Y (Philadelphia) for considerably less than nothing"; but, when the nearer point is on a direct line, the case is debatable. Proof that normal competition compels the lower rate at the remoter station must be uncommonly clear and conclusive. In other words, the facts that the rate at Y is not unduly low and also that the rate at X is not unreasonably high must both be firmly established.
A distinct class of cases of local discrimination is suggested by the recent case of Montgomery, Ala., in the United States Commerce Court.[217] These like other cross line cases, akin to that of Wichita, Kansas, above-mentioned, arise in connection with practices as to the division of joint rates. They will be discussed in connection with pro-rating in our second volume.
The question has forced itself forward constantly as to whether the existence of the alleged discrimination in rates is merely a matter of relativity in cost of operation or whether it inflicts positive injury upon the nearer point. Would it benefit the nearer point if the lower rate beyond were withdrawn? It is here that the complexity of some of these cases of local discrimination becomes apparent. To understand this phase of the matter, the factor of commercial competition, as distinct from mere rivalry of routes, must be introduced. Hadley's analysis of the oyster case is quite inadequate on this point. Rates in that instance were on commodities (oysters) produced at practically uniform cost at both X and Y. They were, moreover, rates from two places out to a common market. Would it, however, make any difference if the controversy concerned the rates in the opposite direction; or, in other words, from a common centre of distribution out to two competing consuming points? Would it make any difference whether the goods were to be consumed at X and Y; or were to be used as raw material in manufactures at those two points; or were to be distributed throughout the countryside from X and Y as jobbing centres? It is at once evident that these issues are more complicated than in the first case. The two points X and Y being commercial and industrial rivals, is it not possible that the growth of one may take place at the expense of the other? At any given time there is only a fixed demand for the goods consumed, manufactured in or redistributed from the two places. Trade won by one is quite lost to the other. Of course, in a measure, this might also have been true of the oyster production. But, inasmuch as in that case the rate from Y was not affected by the entry of X, its prosperity would not probably be disturbed. The Hillsdale ice case, above described, is also one where the commodity (ice) is of relative unimportance for Columbus and Springfield, respectively. How would matters stand if the rates in question were on lumber or coal for manufacturing purposes? The difference, no doubt, is merely of degree and not of kind. Magnitudes, however, must not deceive us. The rights of Kathleen or Danville are just as sacred as those of Youngstown and Pittsburg.
St. Cloud, Minnesota, is located upon a line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, seventy-six miles northwest of St. Paul.[218] It is a competitor not only with St. Paul, but with other local centres in the vicinity, like Elk River, Princeton, and Anoka, either for flour milling or for distributive jobbing business. It is about the same distance as these other places from Duluth or Superior; through which the entire district obtains its supplies, such as coal from the East by lake boats; and by way of which its flour must be shipped to the Eastern markets and to Europe. And yet the rate on flour made at St. Cloud to New York in 1899 was twenty-eight and a half cents per hundredweight, as against a rate of twenty-one and a half cents from St. Paul, this latter rate being enjoyed also by Milaca, Princeton, Elk River, and Anoka. The rates on coal and other supplies from the East were likewise proportionately higher than to St. Paul and these neighboring towns. The specific complaint in this case is of local discrimination. The Northern Pacific Railroad operates the long line between St. Paul and the head of Lake Superior by way of Brainerd. On this business, passing through St. Cloud, it has to meet a rate compelled at St. Paul by the competition of no less than three direct lines to Duluth. It avers that this business, taken either way for longer distances and at lower rates than are accorded to St. Cloud, in no way affects the rates at that point; and that whatever it can earn as a contribution to joint expenses decreases the burden of these upon St. Cloud rates. This is all entirely true from the transportation point of view; but, viewed in a large way, the situation is altered. Wheat of local production about St. Cloud is rendered of less value by practically the excess of the St. Cloud rate per hundredweight over the rate enjoyed from St. Paul. The Interstate Commerce Commission found that this was equivalent to a difference of fully $1 per acre in the value of wheat lands tributary to St. Cloud. And on the other hand, of course, the cost of all its supplies is enhanced above the level of rival manufacturing centres. On soft coal this equalled no less than eighty-five cents per ton. To this the Northern Pacific replied that the discrimination against St. Cloud was not of its creation, but had existed before its entry into any St. Paul business by its indirect route. The Commission found, however, that in fact the participation of this indirect line on St. Paul-Duluth business did affect the short-line rate; and that its withdrawal would at least tend to prevent any further reduction of the St. Paul and related rates. If the withdrawal did not remove the discrimination against St Cloud it would not at all events aggravate it. The vital point, differentiating this case from that of the Savannah Freight Bureau, previously stated, was the actual damage to the intermediate point due to the existence of commercial competition between it and the place more distant.
An important feature in commercial competition is its entire dissociation from all considerations of cost of service by long or short routes. Neither strong nor weak lines make the rate. The business is there. Market conditions are fixed. The carriers are free to take traffic or leave it. Single-handed, at least they cannot rule the price of transportation. The price of sugar at Kansas City is made by competition of Louisiana sugar coming from New Orleans, of beet sugar and Hawaiian sugar from Colorado and San Francisco, and of the world's sugar from New York. This is why Kansas City, in the complaint stated in the opening paragraph, enjoys a lower rate on sugar from San Francisco than the transcontinental lines can accord to Denver. The only possible justification for the apparent anomaly in lumber rates from Texas points, cited in the same paragraph, is that, as the heart of the Middle West is approached, lumber supplies from every point of the compass converge upon common markets. As is so frequently averred in such cases, no carrier makes the rate. The rate is made for all of them by conditions beyond their control. The only rates, therefore, which it is in their power to fix in some accordance with average costs of operation, are the rates at local stations. For these rates alone can they be brought to book.
Just here another characteristic of commercial competition as distinct from rivalry of routes is to be noted. Local discrimination, wherever it is alleged to occur, frequently assumes the form of complaint against rates to various places, not on the same line but by different and often widely separated lines. Complaints of this class might arise, for instance, referring back to our diagrams of the oyster cases, between X and Z. Philadelphia, we will assume, as before, to be the common market. A multitude of different varieties of protest are distinguishable. Point X equally distant from Philadelphia with Z may pay a higher rate than Z. Or X may be less distant than Z, and yet be called upon to pay the same rate. It may even be less distant than Z and yet actually be charged a higher rate than Z. But in all these instances the two points (X and Z) are not on the same route, but on divergent routes. The issue remains the same. The conditions imposed at the point of convergence being fixed, each line must exercise its own ingenuity in conforming thereto. Methods in each case must differ, according to the length of line, the direction and composition of the traffic, and other factors.
* * * * *
Three general schemes of rate-making are distinguishable in American practice. The most satisfactory one is that which obtains in trunk line territory, of zone tariffs with a gradation in some degree corresponding to distance.[219] At the other extreme is the system of the flat or postage-stamp rate, exemplified in the Missouri-Mississippi river territory,[220] and in Pacific coast rates from all points east of the Mississippi.[221]
Intermediate between the two are the systems of basing lines and basing points. The first of these, the basing line system, prevails throughout the country west of the Missouri river. The second, the basing point system, is found throughout the southern states east of the Mississippi. In both the principle is the same. The two differ only in detail. Through rates are made to certain designated places; and from there on, a local rate to all other places, large or small, is added. This local charge rises, of course, with distance. Thus the first-class rate to Denver, Colorado, is made up of a rate of eighty cents from Chicago to the Missouri river, plus $1.25 for the balance of the haul. From Chicago to a point in central Nebraska the only difference would be a lower local. In southern territory the rate to Troy, Alabama, equals the sum of the through rate to the nearest basing point, Montgomery, and of the local rate from there on to destination. The only difference in detail between these two systems is that in the western territory, all competing lines being parallel (until the routes around by sea and back from the Pacific coast are met), rates rise in all cases progressively with distance. The complaint of local discrimination rests merely on the allegation that the rate of progression with increasing distance is too rapid. In the South, on the other hand, owing to the encircling seacoast with deeply penetrating navigable rivers, the competing routes from the East or North converge from different and even from directly opposite directions. Hence it is impossible to base rates upon extended boundary lines, like the Missouri river. Rates must be based upon certain designated points. This introduces a serious complication. Points, instead of lines, being used for basing purposes, in the South, local rates rise outward in every direction around each basing centre until the sphere of the next basing point is met. And local rates to points even back on the same line, through which the traffic has already passed to reach the basing point, are thus of necessity higher than rates to points beyond.
The economic anomaly of rates actually falling progressively as the length of the haul increases is graphically well illustrated in the accompanying diagram, based upon data in the Georgia Railroad Commission cases.[222] The charges from Cincinnati to local points on all lines converging upon Atlanta equal the sum of the rates to Atlanta plus the local charges out. This holds good even on the direct line from Cincinnati through Chattanooga, as the diagram shows; yet of course it also follows that rates must again decline as the next basing point is approached in any direction; be it Montgomery to the west, Macon to the south, or even Chattanooga to the north. The only condition analogous to this in the Far West appears in those places whose rates are made up by a combination of the low water rates to the coast plus a local back eastward into the mountains. The transition from this Pacific coast combination to the system based upon the Missouri river occurs at those places where the aggregate charges from either direction become equal. Viewed as a large matter of principle the whole western system is analogous to the southern system. It is inevitable in both that intermediate points should in all cases be assessed at a higher rate than those adopted as bases.[223]
The reason advanced in support of these basing point or basing line systems is that they are an outgrowth of commercial competition; in other words, that they are compelled by conditions beyond the carriers' control. Sometimes it may be the competition of widely encircling water routes--as from New York around to Galveston and up to Kansas City in the southwestern field, or to Mobile and up to Montgomery, Alabama, in the southeastern states. But, in many other cases, market competition from other centres of supply set the limit to the rate at the basing point. Missouri river cities enjoy a great advantage over all competitors, as meeting places of the ways. Generally, the low rates to the base points have been originally accorded in order to build up local distributive or industrial centres in the face of competition from older places. Nashville undoubtedly owes a large measure of its present prominence to the fact that in the old days its principal railroad gave a foothold and made a clientage for its merchants as against older rivals in Cincinnati and Louisville. Nor can it be said that this was an injury to that clientage, composed of consumers all through the adjacent countryside. Rates for these consumers were not put up, in order to build up Nashville. On the contrary, Nashville was given perhaps inordinately low rates, in order that the sum of these low rates and of the local rates out to Four Corners should be at least as low as those from Cincinnati and Louisville direct. This last argument is the main economic defence of the southern basing point system.[224] It applies equally to the advocacy of a low basing line at Missouri river cities for rate making to points beyond.[225]
The main difficulty with any system of basing points or lines, which so flagrantly violates the distance principle, is first of all to determine at what points to base; and thereafter to accommodate the system to the normal growth and development of the country. The system is inelastic. It tends to break down of its own weight. It must enlarge, if at all, by fits and starts, in each case with violent dislocation of trade. A generation ago towns in Iowa complained that the Mississippi river was a basing line. Then, when the Missouri river line was substituted, an outcry rose from all the points in Nebraska. The persistent complaint from Denver against its rate adjustment as compared with Kansas City,--a competitive distributing centre,--well exemplifies it. The Denver Chamber of Commerce intervenes, and proposes that the basing line be moved from the Missouri river out to Colorado common points (like Denver). Indeed, in each case the argument in favor of the change is identical. Each tier of complainants--thriving cities which have recently come to more or less commercial maturity--plead their inability to compete with the centres adopted some years ago for basing purposes. Denver, for example, wishes to sell goods throughout Utah. But its total charges there on goods purchased in the East amount to eighty cents from Chicago to the Missouri river, plus $1.25 on to Denver, plus $1.64 on to destination,--a sum of $3.69 per hundred pounds. The Kansas City dealer, on the other hand, gets a low base rate of only eighty cents with a single additional rate directly out to Utah of $2.05. In other words, the latter can lay down his goods in Utah for $2.85 as against $3.69 paid by the Denver competitor. The point to be carried forward, however, is not so much the disparity against Denver, as the fact that the moment Denver is promoted to be a basing point it becomes defendant in a complaint of precisely the same sort, brought by the places still further west. This inelasticity of basing point schemes, together with their inability to expand without abrupt dislocations of trade, is apparent everywhere in the South. Just as Chattanooga complains against Nashville, so the little intermediate stations between Chattanooga and Atlanta, as our diagram on page 240 showed, become restive under rates of $1.27 as compared with a rate twenty-one cents lower charged on to Atlanta. The system of basing points or lines may be an inevitable concomitant of industrial immaturity; but it is none the less difficult to defend as a permanent system or as one inherently just. And its final relegation to the scrap heap, in favor of a system of rates graded more or less according to distance, is ardently to be desired.[226]
* * * * *
Does a constant rate applied over a long stretch on the same line constitute local discrimination? May the nearer points rightfully protest against the fact that equally low rates are accorded to remoter points? This is the gist of the controversy in the very suggestive Milk Rate cases in 1897.[227] Here the conflict of interest between producer and consumer is obvious. The city of New York naturally desires a wide market from which to draw its supply. On the other hand, the nearby producers wish to enjoy the advantages of nearness to the market to the fullest degree. Study of the evolution of rate sheets clearly shows how such grouping of charges over long distances may be in the nature of a compromise to avoid actual violation of the long and short haul principle. Oftentimes places scattered along over a hundred miles of railroad enjoy absolute equality of charges. Obviously, the ton-mile rate steadily falls within such a group with progressive remoteness. Yet it is an inevitable feature of tariff building.[228] It is the kernel of the admirable trunk line rate system. Such an equalization of rates between points unequally distant from a given centre, not infrequently arises in connection with mere competition of transportation routes. Referring back to the diagrams on page 219, it may happen that a complainant at X, the nearer point, recognizing the inevitableness of a low rate at Y, may succeed in securing an agreement that, while its charges cannot be less than at Y, at least they shall not be more. This was all that was asked in the "rare and peculiar" case of Youngstown, Ohio.[229] But it is apparent that such a solution differs only in degree from those previously discussed. The question of principle remains the same. The roundabout route to New York up back by way of Youngstown could continue to compete at Pittsburg for as low a rate as on direct shipments, even if it observed the long and short haul principle to which the Pennsylvania direct route was committed, only by charging much lower rates per ton mile on Pittsburg traffic through Youngstown than was levied on business there originating. This raises precisely the same question of distribution of joint expenses between local and competitive traffic, already discussed. In certain contingencies under the second variety of the oyster cases, such a solution might apply. Would Chattanooga, for example, assuming it to belong in the second class of oyster cases, be contented with an equality of through rates with Nashville, leaving its local rates out to smaller towns as they are?
The most extreme instance of uniform or postage-stamp rates applied over long distances occurs in the transcontinental tariffs from different points in the East. These differ radically from the adjustment of rates between different points on the Pacific slope, already described. At the far western end the lowest rates are accorded to coast cities, because of water competition by sea. Rates to interior points progressively rise by the addition of locals inward toward the interior. The rates thus compelled by water competition are accepted by the all-rail lines. Thus the Pacific coast end is practically built upon a basing line. It might be expected that in consequence of water competition by sea a similar system would prevail at the eastern end of the line; that rates to the Pacific coast from interior cities would rise progressively according to distance inland, until at all events the direct all-rail charge became as low as by the combined rail-and-water rates. But such is not the case, and for two reasons. The first is that in the East interior cities are large and powerful factors in trade. There were no such interior cities in the Far West, until Spokane came into its own. These inland eastern cities, Pittsburg, for example, demanded equality of opportunity with the seaboard cities in Pacific coast trade. They succeeded in obtaining it by a grant of as low rates as New York or Boston enjoyed. In the second place, all the Pacific coast carriers enjoy monopoly as far east as the Missouri river. But east of that line there are many routes interested in middle western cities, but having no interest in those in the East. They, too, have insisted upon giving their clients in such places as St. Louis and Chicago as low rates as Philadelphia or New York. Little by little the equality of rates was extended until for many years the blanket rate has covered the entire United States east of the Mississippi river.
Does not this constitute local discrimination against the middle western cities? This was one of the main contentions in the St. Louis Business Mens' League case. Being one thousand miles nearer San Francisco, it demanded recognition of that fact in its tariffs. The difficulty is accentuated when both eastern and western point rates are considered together. St. Louis enjoys no lower rate than New York, although one thousand miles further east; and inland points in the Rocky mountain area may be one thousand miles further east than San Francisco and yet pay a higher rate. Thus it is possible to lop off one thousand miles at each end of the line without affording any recognition of it in the tariffs. The situation is too involved to discuss in detail in this place; but one finds it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the whole system will demand revision before long. Geographical conditions are immutable. Trade conditions are not. Perhaps it was inevitable that the former should by force of circumstances have been somewhat overlooked during a period of rapid growth. But, as commercial affairs approach a condition of stability and permanence, the matter will call for most careful examination.
Constant rates applied over long distances on the same line almost inevitably tend to pass over into a system of equality of rates over different lines.[230] The necessity was evident enough in the Milk Rate case. This phase of the matter may theoretically best be discussed by reference to the following diagram. Suppose A, B, C, and D to represent any four inland "common points." It remains to show how it comes about that they all finally enjoy equal rates to all four seaports, regardless of location. Each appears to be naturally tributary to some one of the seaports by a dominant or short-line route. In each instance this route properly rules the rate. Moreover, the four seaports may be considered for traffic purposes as equally and interchangeably distant from one another without regard to location. This follows from the fact that, except in extreme instances, rates by water do not vary according to distance, so small is the cost of mere propulsion by comparison with the terminal costs. In other words, the rate is the same from Wilmington to Brunswick or Savannah as to its next neighbor Charleston. From this it follows, further, that Wilmington, Savannah, and Brunswick can all reach B--the point to which Charleston is nearest--on even terms. They may each have a direct line to B; but, as compared with a possible combined low water rate to Charleston and a low direct rail rate inland to B, the Charleston route may be at least able to hold its own. All three outside competitors, then, are on even terms with one another in respect of access to B. But how does Charleston stand towards B as against the field? We have already concluded that a roundabout route must be allowed to meet, though not to undercut, the ruling rate. Such a roundabout route from Wilmington on this diagram to its own natural tributary A could be, and as a matter of fact is, made by passing around by way of Charleston or any other seaport. Charleston wishes to share in this trade at A, and may reach it by similar tactics. It stands towards A precisely as Wilmington stands towards B. They finally agree to enjoy both A and B on even terms. But, as we have already seen, the admission of Wilmington to B is equivalent to the admission of all the rest. Whence it comes about that all four establish B as a "common point." And of course the same procedure fixes all the others, A, C, and D in the same way. In the Savannah Fertilizer case[231] it appeared that there were no fewer than 148 points in ten states from Louisiana to Kentucky, to which rates on fertilizers were absolutely the same from each of the four seaports. The degree of local discrimination of course was negligible at the remoter places; but it augmented in proportion as the immediate neighborhood of each seaport was approached. The apparent anomaly was greatest in a north and south direction along the seacoast. Thus Dinsmore, Florida, was 275 miles from Charleston and only 160 miles from Savannah, yet the rates from both points were the same. The governing feature usually was the entire equality of coastwise water rates, regardless of distance, which in turn compelled the land lines to follow suit.
The Cincinnati Freight Bureau case, otherwise known as the Maximum Freight Rate case,[232] affords the best example of the difficulty in practice of adjusting rates over different and widely separated lines on a distance basis, in order to satisfy the demands of commercial competition. Atlanta, Georgia, the key to the southern market, is 876 miles by rail from New York, but only 475 miles from Cincinnati and 733 from Chicago. In other words, Cincinnati is fifty-four per cent. as far from Atlanta as is New York; and even Chicago is only eighty-four per cent. as remote. In general, this valuable southern territory, on the basis of mere distance, is really nearer to the leading middle western cities than to those on the Atlantic seaboard. Yet this geographical situation is not reflected in the railway tariffs. Rates from the West, especially on manufactures, were much higher, always relatively and often absolutely. Thus first-class goods in 1894 paid $1.47 per hundred from Chicago (733 miles), while from New York (876 miles) the rate was only $1.14. At points like Chattanooga the disparity was even greater. This city is only 595 miles from Chicago as against 1,060 miles from Boston. Yet the rates were actually lower ($1.14) from New England than from Chicago ($1.16). The principal reason for this of course was the cheap coastwise water competition by way of Charleston and Savannah. The eastern all-rail routes could charge no more than the combined rail-and-water lines. The difference in relative cost of operation by water was recognized by means of so-called "constructive mileage." From New York to Savannah by sea is about 750 miles; yet the allowance to the steamers was proportioned upon a distance of only 250 miles. Water cost was thus fixed by comparison with rail cost in the proportion of one to three. Yet, even with this allowance in favor of eastern cities, New York remained more distant from Atlanta than Cincinnati; the "rate-making" distance from the former being 538 miles as against only 475 miles from Cincinnati. The arbitrary reduction of the New York distance left Chicago more remote (733 miles), but not in so great degree as its tariffs implied. These tariffs were also peculiar in another regard. The handicap against the western cities was much higher in respect of manufactures and high-class freight than upon foodstuffs and raw produce. This in turn was clearly due to a long-established agreement between the lines east and west of the Alleghanies, as to a division of the field. Originally each set of lines was harassed by roundabout competition from the other. Western foodstuffs and raw produce were reaching the South by way of the Atlantic seaboard; and eastern manufactures from New York, for instance, were rambling about over western lines in order to reach places like Atlanta and Augusta, naturally served by direct routes from the East. The agreement to divide the field, dating from 1878, steadily became more irksome, however, to the West, with the development of manufactures of its own. The problems raised by this change are too large to be considered here. The main question for the present inquiry is as to the relative fairness of rates from two widely separated centres to a common market, those rates not being proportioned to distance. The final settlement of this knotty question is suggestive of the extreme difficulty of attempting to apply mileage or distance rates over different railroads too rigidly. The complaint being as to relativity, there were only two possible solutions.[233] One was to increase the eastern rates, the other to order a reduction of the charges from the West. The former course was impossible, owing to the presence of water competition by sea, not under control. The latter alternative was, therefore, chosen by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its decision in 1894. The rates from western cities were always composed of two parts. The charge from the Ohio south was kept distinct as a local rate. The other portion of the rate applied from Chicago, for example, down to the Ohio river. Of these two parts, the trunk line portion appeared reasonable enough. It was the southern local, often one hundred per cent. higher than the other, which seemed most unreasonable; and which, according to all appearances, had been used to bring about a closure of the market to western manufactured goods. Consequently the Commission ordered a reduction of the southern local rates, cutting them drastically, but leaving the northern locals unchanged. This decision was never carried into effect; as the Supreme Court of the United States held the Commission to have no such rate-making power. Nothing was done apparently to remedy the disparity in charges against the West, although the railroads serving that territory urgently pressed for action. Every time they threatened a reduction of their western rates, the eastern line came down in proportion. This left the relative rates as before, although the general scale would be lower all round.
At last, in 1905, the eastern lines from Baltimore south agreed to permit a reduction of five cents in the rates from western cities by lines north of the Ohio river; but they refused to accede to any change in the rates from the Ohio south. This was the exact opposite of the Interstate Commerce Commission's proposition, although both plans were intended to compass the same object; namely, to place western shippers more nearly on a parity with the East. The Commission, in 1894, laid all reduction upon the southern portion of the rate; the railroads, in 1905, placed it all upon the northern part. This obviously afforded no relief to the original complainant, Cincinnati. In fact, it actually operated to its great disadvantage, inasmuch as it let its two powerful rivals, Chicago and St. Louis, into the southern field on distinctly more favorable terms. Such was the outcome as a result of the friction of railroad competition. The reasonableness of some reduction was clear. But to the layman, the fairness of laying the reduction entirely upon the northern locals, already relatively low, instead of upon the extremely high southern part of the rate is not by any means so clear.[234]
One further detail of this adjustment of southern rates raises a question:
"Rates between Richmond, Virginia, and Atlanta, Georgia, are less than the rates between Richmond, Virginia, and Greenwood, South Carolina (an intermediate point). This is due to indirect competition between Richmond and Western jobbing points; and in order to permit the jobber or manufacturer in Richmond to do business as against his competitor in Cincinnati, it has been necessary to fix the rates from Richmond to Atlanta with some reference to the rates from Cincinnati to Atlanta. At Greenwood, South Carolina, we find that the Cincinnati shipper pays a very much higher rate than to Atlanta, and that the rates from Richmond are already sufficiently low to enable the Richmond shipper to compete at Greenwood with the Cincinnati shipper."[235]
Is this not in a measure well described in the passage, "unto him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath"? This railway argument contains dangerous possibilities. In effect, upon the theory of charging what the traffic will bear, it means that a railway (in this case the Seaboard Air Line) may increase its own local rates, not in proportion to the length of its own haul (from Richmond to Greenwood), but according to the remoteness of that local point from another competing market. The inevitable effect of the general adoption of such a policy must be to erect arbitrary barriers to the free and widespread movement of commerce. The great advantage of the flat rate or of commodity rates is that, placing all competing centres upon an absolute parity irrespective of distance, they encourage the utmost freedom of trade.
* * * * *
Certain general conclusions seem to be warranted by the analysis of these cases of local discrimination. The first is that they all show the extreme delicacy of commercial adjustment and the existence of conditions well beyond the control of the carriers, jointly or singly. Trade jealousies in particular--the rivalry of producing and consuming centres--render relativity of rates of paramount importance to shippers. This class in the community is interested comparatively little in the absolute level of rates, that being more directly the concern of the general consuming public. To the public, as represented by State and Federal legislatures, it is difficult to make these complicated matters of commercial competition clear. The only basis of rate making that is easily understood is one founded in general upon the distance principle, or, in other words, correlated with considerations of cost of operation. Any departure from this basis is apt to breed suspicion, and at all events puts the carrier upon the defence. It is bad policy, in their own interest, for railroads to permit a continuance of such violations of the distance principle in their general tariffs (commodity rates as a special resource to meet the special needs of commercial competition may be set aside), except in extreme cases. This was recognized by the trunk lines when they almost unanimously acquiesced in the long and short haul provisions of the Act of 1887. The people of the United States have the same right that they had then, to expect that at the earliest possible moment the wise provisions of the trunk line rate adjustment shall be widely accepted in the West and South. Whether those regions, and the railways that reach them, have yet sufficiently developed to warrant the change is a matter requiring careful consideration in detail.
The necessity of some exercise of governmental control over these carriers of the country, in order to mitigate, if not to eliminate, local discrimination as far as possible, is evident. Many of the instances previously cited have clearly shown how impossible it often is for any railroad, single-handed, to deal with an involved situation in a large way. Take the Cincinnati Freight Bureau case, for instance. Conceding, as many would, the claim of western cities to some readjustment of tariffs in their favor, is it not an anomaly that the lines south from Baltimore, several hundred miles away, should finally dictate the means to be employed to remedy the situation at Cincinnati and Chicago? Who else but the Federal government could ever hope to disentangle the almost hopeless snarl of competition involved in the controversy over differentials to and from the Atlantic seaboard?[236] This controversy is at bottom one of local discrimination. And yet how is the Interstate Commerce Commission to aid in the solution of these intricate problems under present conditions? Its hands formerly doubly tied, are now in part freed by rehabilitation of the long and short haul clause. But it cannot yet deal with minimum rates, nor is it clear that it can prescribe differential rates.[237] True, the commission may, in some cases, accomplish by indirection its purpose of establishing a proper relativity between rates through the exercise of its newly granted power to fix maximum rates. This, as we shall see, was done in the recent Spokane and Denver decisions. Holding that the charges at interior points were out of line with through rates to the Pacific coast; and being unable to govern the long-distance tariffs, it simply ordered a reduction of certain rates at Spokane and Denver as inherently unreasonable. This solution is not, however, always practicable. Not infrequently the lower rate at the remoter point will drop as soon as the intermediate rate is lowered. Thus the former relativity of charges is re-established on a generally lower scale. The complaint in the Eau Claire lumber case required the exercise of such power over minimum rates, in order to remove the disability against a particular centre. And then, finally, it is indubitable that commercial competition as a "compelling" factor has been somewhat over-emphasized by the railroads. Too often conditions in part brought about by themselves, or in which at least they have acquiesced, have been set up as a defence for rates favoring certain points. This is especially true of the southern basing point cases.[238] Whether any further grant of powers to the Interstate Commerce Commission by Congress is necessary at this time in order to enable progress to be made in this connection, it is as yet too soon to predict. The course of affairs for the next few years will at all events bear attentive watching.
* * * * *
In the case of competition between a direct and a longer, more roundabout line, which one "controls" or fixes the rate? It is an important matter, involving as it does the economic, if not the legal, right of a carrier to participate in any given traffic. Concerning this question the greatest diversity of opinion prevails. On the one hand, both writers[239] and practical railway men[240] aver that the short line makes the rate, while the long line merely meets the rate thus made. This is probably the more prevalent opinion. Yet expert evidence of an opposite sort is to be had for the seeking. The Interstate Commerce Commission has repeatedly held that the short line is at the mercy of the longer line under certain circumstances;[241] and traffic managers not infrequently plead their inability to control rate situations in the face of irrepressible, roundabout competition.[242] There is evidently a confusion of thinking, or else a loose use of terms where statements are so conflicting. As a matter of voluntary agreement among roads, or of prescribed rates under government regulation, the issue often assumes the form of controversy as to whether a road operating under a physical disability shall be permitted to participate in a given business by a concession in rates or not. Thus in the notable Milk Rate cases it was a question whether roads with heavy grades should be allowed to make concessions in rates. This issue really also underlies the question of enforcement of the long and short haul clause. In the recent Spokane case the Harriman lines to St. Paul asked that they, being long lines, should not be compelled to reduce their rates to the figure prescribed for the direct Hill roads.
It is clear in the first place that "short line" and "long line" are merely used as convenient terms to designate differences in the cost of operation. This was well put by James J. Hill before the Elkins Committee of 1905.
"We will say that the distance from Cincinnati to New York is 800 miles, and that they haul 800 tons behind one locomotive on one per cent. ruling grades. Now somebody else builds a road with a 0.3 grade, and he can haul 2,000 tons--twice and a half the amount; but that line is 200 miles longer. You can see readily that to move a given number of tons the second road runs less than half the train miles, so that the farthest way round is the nearest way home in that case."
The problem should really be stated thus in terms of cost not of distance. Suppose the roundabout line to be in part or wholly by water, as in competition between the transcontinental roads and the Isthmian or Cape Horn routes, or as between the direct all-rail line from Boston to Nashville, Tenn., and the steamer line from Boston to Savannah, and thence up to Nashville by rail. In such cases the rail lines allow the water routes a differential or constructive mileage in recognition of their relatively cheaper per mile expenses of operation. The differential may sometimes exist, where, judging by the bulk of traffic the advantage, irrespective of the differential, lies with the line giving the lower rate. In other words, as measured by volume of business, the stronger line and not the weaker one enjoys the benefit of the differential. This is the case in the coastwise traffic between Atlantic and Gulf ports; where the bulk of the tonnage goes by steamer and at lower rates than by all-rail lines. The difficult point to settle in all such cases is whether the allowance is made as a voluntary concession to the roundabout line because it costs more to operate; or whether it is a toll or tribute, because, irrespective of the cost, the long line rate is made on the basis of value of service. The problem, then, resolves itself into this: how far in practice does cost of operation really "control" the rate in cases of competition between two lines differently circumstanced in this regard? If cost is of fundamental importance, the "short line," using the term as above said in a figurative sense, "controls" the rate. If cost is an entirely secondary matter, rates being made in accordance with considerations of value of service, the "long line" holds the upper hand, and the short one is at its mercy.
It is important, moreover, in the comparison of costs of operation, to keep in view the interrelation between fixed charges and operating expenses. This point is often neglected. Any well-considered outlay upon permanent improvements, of course, increases fixed charges according to the extent of the new capital investment; but at the same time it presumably lessens the direct cost of operation. The interest upon funds spent for heavier rails, reduction of grades, straightening of curves, better terminals or heavier rolling stock, must be set over against the direct economies resulting from heavier train loads, lessened expenditure for wear and tear, for accidents and claims or for wages. This relation between current expense and capital cost was clearly emphasized in an arbitration decision by the late S. R. Blanchard, already cited in another connection. Two roads were in competition for business at New Orleans. One had costly but convenient terminal facilities. The other was so far from the heart of the city that the drayage expenses were an important item. This second railway began by offering free cartage to shippers in order to even up with its more favored competitor; but this soon gave way to the practice of private teaming by shippers with an allowance on the freight bill for "drayage equalization." The other road objected to this on the ground that it constituted a virtual rebate; that in other words the weaker line was taking business at an abnormally low rate. The arbitrator, however, upheld the practice, on the ground that the heavier operating expense for cartage was merely an alternative for increased interest charges, had the road elected to construct costly and more convenient terminals. One road virtually paid money for team hire, the other paid it in interest on bonds.
Analyzing the main question two propositions are certain. Firstly, the long line can never charge more than the short line; whence it follows that as the short line reduces its rate, the long one must accept that rate as made; and, secondly, the long line, costing more to operate, is, in the process of reduction of rates, bound to be the first to strike the bed-rock of cost incident to that particular service. To go below this point of particular cost would obviously be indefensible from every point of view. The general rule, then, is that "the short line rules the rate." This is accepted widely in practice, as for example throughout trunk line territory and between the so-called Missouri-Mississippi river points, where the short line from Hannibal to St. Joseph determines all rates by longer routes.[243] But the problem yet remains unsolved. The long line may never be able to charge more than the short line--may it, however, charge less under certain conditions? The moment it is enabled to do so, the long line and not the short line, for the moment, "controls the rate." If, now, we use the technically proper terms, the question becomes this: Under what circumstances is average cost of service in railway competition set aside in favor of other considerations; or, otherwise stated, when may a line, operated under a disability as to cost, properly give a lower rate than its competitors notwithstanding? Does disability justify a handicap or the reverse? This was the form which the question assumed in the notable Milk Rate case: as to whether the weaker lines in respect of distance or grades should be allowed compensation therefor by permission to charge higher rates.
One of the common instances of rate control by a line operating under a disability as to distance or normal cost is the competition of a bankrupt with a solvent property. The "roundabout" line, like the Erie or the old New York and New England, having repudiated its fixed charges, undoubtedly "makes" the rate which the other roads must meet or lose the traffic. Usually they prefer to absorb or control it otherwise, financially, thus substituting monopoly for a ruinous condition of competition. Yet such instances resolve themselves, evidently, into questions of relative cost of operation after all. The bankrupt road holds the whip hand, because, having repudiated its fixed charges, its average costs of operation are correspondingly reduced. The validity of operating cost as a basis of charges is surely not shaken by this exceptional case.
The relative proportions and the distribution of local and through traffic upon two lines of differing length in competition with one another are primary factors in determining the ability of either one to "make the rate." This is, of course, especially true under the operation of any long and short haul law, under which any reduction of the competitive rates would necessitate a lowering of the charges at intermediate points. No road is going to sacrifice lucrative rates upon a large volume of local traffic unless it can gain either a large volume of business or a very long haul from a competitive point. Many of the notorious rate disturbers in our industrial history have been "short cut" roads--the shortest lines between given important points, regardless of the nature of the intervening territory--like the old New York and New England, the Erie or the Canada Southern. Other roads, like the Chicago Great Western or the Central Vermont, were more roundabout, and yet enjoyed but little local business, depending almost exclusively for their livelihood upon long hauls between termini. On the Central Vermont at one time, through business constituted seventy-nine per cent. of the total; and only five per cent. was strictly local in origin. On the other hand, the Louisville & Nashville, in its original petition for exemption from the long and short haul clause, stated that eighty per cent. of its income was derived from local business. This consideration, as applied to competition between the two primary trunk lines, may not be without significance. As compared with the Pennsylvania Railroad, rich in local business, the New York Central, running along the narrow Mohawk and Hudson valleys, has not inaptly been described as operating "between good points, but not through a good country." Under a strict enforcement of the long and short haul clause, the dilemma on the former road would be more serious than on the latter. To choose between its rich local traffic in iron and steel or coal and the long haul business from the West, would be a more difficult matter for the Pennsylvania, than for the New York Central management to weigh its through grain business against the local traffic from interior New York points.
In one way the persistence of locally high rates in the South and West, irrespective of the low charges at competitive points, is defensible on the ground that local business is scanty.[244] The roads cannot live upon it. Their mainstay is the long-distance traffic from important points.[245] On the other hand, where there is no obligation to maintain a distance tariff, of course the road with rich local business enjoys a great advantage in making rates at competitive points. It can practically subsist upon its revenue from its own particular constituency, meeting all its fixed charges thereby; and can afford to cut rates on the competitive tonnage down to the bone. Such a road, quite irrespective of the length of its line, would obviously "control" the rate at competitive points, as against any rival without such a subsidiary and independent source of income.[246]
Volume of traffic is another fundamental element in the determination of cost of operation. No matter how short the line or how easy its curves and grades, unless it can handle its tonnage in large bulk it will operate at a disadvantage. Hence a most important factor to be reckoned with, in deciding which of two competing lines is in a commanding position as to rates, is the volume of traffic, both in gross and as susceptible of concentration on either line. In the notable Chattanooga case, for example, although the line from New York to Nashville, passing around to the south by way of Chattanooga, is 212 miles shorter than the lines via Cincinnati or Louisville, the latter, by reason of the density of traffic in trunk line territory, seem to stand at least on an even footing. On the other hand, the enjoyment of the bulk of the tonnage sometimes places its possessor at the mercy of a petty rival. The Fall River water line to New York, carrying an overwhelming preponderance of the business, obviously could not afford to cut rates to prevent the Joy Line from stealing a small portion of the traffic. The same principle holds good in other lines of business. The Standard Oil Company can better afford permanently to concede a small fraction of business to a small independent dealer, so long as he knows his place and refrains from ambition to enlarge, rather than to attempt to drive him out entirely by cutting prices on a huge volume of business. Occasionally independents are shrewd enough to take advantage of this; and so to distribute their business that they shall in no single place menace a powerful rival, and yet comfortably subsist on the gleanings over a wide area.[247] In no single locality are they important enough to exterminate, at the cost of cut rates applied to a large volume of business; and yet in the aggregate they may make quite a fair livelihood. The only difference between the status of a railway and other lines of business in this regard is that the railway may not be quite so free to deploy its forces. Its territory and tonnage are more definitely circumscribed by physical conditions of location.
A point to be noted in this same connection is the relative stability of the traffic. Is it concentrated in a few hands or does it arise from many scattered sources? In the former case either road by making a bold stroke may so entirely capture the business that, by reason of the enhanced volume, a handicap in operation may be overcome. Thus, in the notable instance of trunk line competition for the beef traffic some twenty years ago, the Grand Trunk, although much more roundabout, besides being handicapped in other ways, by securing all the business, could afford to make rates impossible under other circumstances.
Whether the business in question is natural or normal to a road, or is an extra, diverted from other more direct lines, is still another factor of importance affecting ability to compete successfully for any given traffic. The best statement of this is found in the argument of J. C. Stubbs before the Arbitration Board on Canadian Pacific Differentials in 1898.[248] "These are differentials in favor of weaker lines--lines which upon the merits of their service cannot successfully compete for the business, but claim a share of it as the reward of virtue, the price of maintaining reasonable rates.... For example, the Canadian Pacific road was not projected or built for the purpose of developing, fostering, or sharing the carrying trade between San Francisco and the eastern part of the United States.... After they were built and the various connections made, then, and not until then, it was seen that there was a business opened. The route having been opened, the newer and longer lines entered the field of competition against the older, shorter, and more direct lines by cutting the latter's rates.... In a fight of this kind, paradoxical as it may seem, the stronger line always got the worst of it.... The weaker or longer line, not having any business at the outset, had nothing to lose. Everything was gain to it, which appeared to show an earning above the actual cost of handling the particular lot of freight. Quite a distinction between that and the average cost of handling all business. Such an unequal warfare could not long continue, and the common result was that the stronger line sought for terms, and ultimately bought the weaker line off, ... this class of differentials is and always has been obnoxious."
Our final conclusion must therefore be that the outcome in cases of unequal competition in respect of cost of operation can seldom be predicted with certainty. Everything depends upon local circumstances and conditions. Sometimes the long line and sometimes the short line will dominate. Careful analysis of every feature of the business must be made before positive affirmation is possible. This result is at all events worth noting. A due appreciation of the complexity of the business of rate making may safeguard us against the cocksure statements of the novice, who has never closely examined into the subject. President Taft has recently emphasized the need of expert service in the field of customs and tariff legislation. It is greatly to be hoped that a similar appreciation of the care with which railway legislation should proceed may prevail at Washington during the present session of Congress.
FOOTNOTES:
[200] Cullom Committee, Report, Testimony, p. 532. Cf. instances in Hudson's Railways and the Republic; and Parson's Heart of the Railway Problem as showing popular misunderstanding.
[201] Senate (Elkins) Committee Report, 1905, p. 1892.
[202] Pp. 116-117.
[203] Another instance is afforded by the Savannah Freight Bureau case: 7 Int. Com. Rep., 458. See our Railway Problems, chap. XII.
[204] Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, decided May 14, 1903. Cf. the extraordinary diversion of traffic over the long route in Troy-Chatham, N. Y. case: 23 I. C. C. Rep., 263.
[205] This recalls Traffic Manager Bird's testimony relative to Wisconsin controversies before the Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905.
[206] Using this term technically as described on p. 256, infra.
[207] Chapter XIV, p. 480, infra. The original correspondence setting forth these conditions is reprinted by the Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, Digest, App. III, p. 46. 21 I. C. C. Rep., 64, and 17 Idem, 335 are analogous cases.
[208] 7 Int. Com. Rep., 458: reprinted in our Railway Problems, chap. XII.
[209] Brief of Ed. Baxter, Alabama Midland Railway case, U. S. Supreme Court, p. 71; and Acworth, p. 83. Details in chap. XIV and XIX, infra.
[210] 14 I. C. C. Rep., 299.
[211] Details at pp. 245 and 610, infra.
[212] Interstate Commerce Reports, No. 696, decided June 25, 1904.
[213] Cf. the opinion in the Savannah Fertilizer case in our Railway Problems, chap. XII.
[214] Chapter XI, infra, also in volume II.
[215] 10 Int. Com. Rep., 111; reprinted in full in our Railway Problems, chap. X. Also the Commerce Court decision in chap. XVI, infra.
[216] The leading Wichita cases are as follows: 9 I.C.C. Rep., 507, 534 and 558.--10 Idem, 460. (Lehmann Higginson Co.).--13 Idem, 389. Also 189 U. S. Rep., 274.--Also Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, IV. p. 2874 et seq.
[217] Chapter XVIII, p. 590, infra.
[218] 8 Int. Com. Rep., 346; reprinted in full in our Railway Problems, chap. XI.
[219] Chapter X, infra.
[220] Chapter IV, supra, p. 128.
[221] Chapters XI and XIX, infra.
[222] 5 I.C.C. Rep., 324; p. 480, infra.
[223] Cf. Commissioner Fifer's dissenting opinion in the St. Louis Business Men's League case, 9 Int. Com. Rep., 318; reprinted in our Railway Problems, chap. XVII.
[224] Chapter XI, infra.
[225] 11 I.C.C. Rep., 495; 15 Idem, 555; U. S. Industrial Commission, IV, p. 264 and IX, p. 287. Also pp. 129, supra, and 442, infra.
[226] The feasibility of doing this in the South could all parties concerned be whipped into line, is demonstrated by the ingenious adaptation of the trunk line system to local conditions by a special committee of the Southern Railway and Steamship Association in 1880. Report of meeting August 12, 1880, in Proceedings, VII.
[227] 7 I.C.C. Rep., 92. The report and opinion is reprinted in full by the Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, as Appendix H.
[228] P. 103, supra.
[229] Pp. 223, supra; and 296, infra.
[230] Similar cases are 12 I.C.C. Rep., 564; 14 Idem, 476 on oranges; 16 Idem, 276; 22 Idem, 93 and 115; and 23 Idem, 195; are local but identical problems of distances. Also the Superior Commercial Club case, just handed down June 25, 1912, on grain rates. Cf. also Hammond, Railway Rate Theories, etc., p. 94.
[231] 7 Int. Com. Rep., 458; reprinted in our Railway Problems, chap. XII.
[232] Chapter XIV, infra, discusses its legal aspect. Reprinted in full in our Railway Problems, chap. VI.
[233] Cf. testimony in Elkins Committee Report, 1905, p. 2726. The Commerce Court case on page 588, infra, brings it to date.
[234] Cf. Answer of Receivers' and Shippers' Association of Cincinnati to statement of W. J. Murphy, etc., March 15, 1907.
[235] Senate (Elkins) Committee Report, 1905, Digest, Appendix III., p. 231.
[236] 22 I.C.C. Rep., 99 is a case of conceded injustice for fourteen years; yet of a complete deadlock between carriers, broken only by Federal intervention.
[237] Infra.
[238] Chapter XI, infra.
[239] Acworth, "Elements of Railway Economics," p. 125.
[240] Testimony of J. J. Hill, Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, p. 1507; certainly in the Missouri-Mississippi river territory, the Hannibal-St. Joe distance rules.
[241] Especially in the Danville and St. Cloud cases; 8 Int. Com. Rep., 357 and 429. Cf. the Vermont Central case, 1 Idem, 182 and 82: and 7 Idem, 481.
[242] An especially notable instance was the Canadian Pacific differential arbitration in 1898. Proceedings, etc., p. 73, argument of J. C. Stubbs.
[243] It is also the rule in France. Senate (Elkins) Committee, V, p. 273. Cf. the Superior grain case. I.C.C., decided June 25, 1912.
[244] Cf. Mr. Fink's testimony in Hearings Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 51st Cong. 1st session, Sen. Rep., 847, p. 29.
[245] Solution of transcontinental dilemma depends upon this choice. Railway Age Gazette, Nov. 25, 1910. Cf. chaps. XI and XIX, infra.
[246] 19 I.C.C. Rep., 218 affords an excellent example as between the Union Pacific and the Denver and Rio Grande. Also the Montgomery, Ala., case in the Commerce Court, p. 590, infra. Also the Union Pacific Merger case, Brief of Facts for Appellants, 1912, p. 276.
[247] For an instance in the tobacco business: Cf. The Atlantic Monthly, 1908, p. 487.
[248] Page 72.
VIII. PROBLEMS OF ROUTING
Neglect of distance, an American peculiarity, 264.--Derived from joint cost, 265.--Exceptional cases, 265.--Economic waste in American practice, 268.--Circuitous rail carriage, 269.--Water and rail-and-water shipments, 273.--Carriage over undue distance, 277.--An outcome of commercial competition, 278.--Six causes of economic waste, illustrated, 280.--Pro-rating and rebates, 281.--Five effects of disregard of distance, 288.--Dilution of revenue per ton mile, 289.--Possible remedies for economic waste, 292.--Pooling and rate agreements, 293.--The long and short haul remedy, 295.
The general acceptance, both in practice and theory, of the principle that distance is a relatively unimportant element in rate making[249] is significant at this time, in connection with the recent amendment of the Act to Regulate Commerce. It is important also because of the marked tendency toward the adoption by various state legislatures of the extreme opposite principle of a rigid distance tariff. The old problem of effecting a compromise between these two extreme theories by some form of long and short haul clause--the original section 4 of the act of 1887 having been emasculated by judicial interpretation--is again brought to the front. For these reasons it may be worth while to consider certain results which inevitably follow the widespread acceptance of this principle of the blanket rate. Its benefits are indeed certain; namely, an enlargement of the field of competition, and an equalization of prices over large areas, and that too at the level of the lowest or most efficient production. But these advantages entail certain consequences--of minor importance, perhaps, but none the less deserving of notice.
The subordination of distance to other factors in rate making is a logical derivation from the theory of joint cost. This theory justifies the classification of freight, namely, a wide range of rates nicely adjusted to what the traffic in each particular commodity will bear, while always allowing each to contribute something toward fixed and joint expenses. In the same way it explains a close correlation of the distance charge to what each commodity will bear. It assumes that any rate, however low, which will yield a surplus over expenses directly incidental to the increment of traffic and which thus contributes something toward indivisible joint costs, serves not only the carrier by increasing his gross revenue, but at the same time lightens the burden of fixed expenses upon the balance of the traffic. This principle of joint cost, so clearly set forth by Professor Taussig,[250] is fundamental and comprehensive. It pervades every detail of rate making. But it rests upon two basic assumptions which, while generally valid, are not universally so. In the first place each increment of traffic must be new business, not tonnage wrested from another carrier and offset by a loss of other business to that competitor. And secondly, each increment of traffic must be economically suitable to the particular carriage in contemplation.
The first of these assumptions fails wherever two carriers mutually invade each other's fields or traffic. Each is accepting business at a virtual loss, all costs including fixed charges on capital being taken into account, in order to secure the increment of business. Each gain is offset by a corresponding loss. It is the familiar case of the rate war. A less familiar aspect of the matter is presented when traffic is disadvantageously carried by two competing roads, each diverting business from its natural course over the other's line. The sum total of traffic is not increased. Each carries only as much as before but transports its quota at an abnormal cost to itself. This may, perhaps, swell gross revenues; but by no process of legerdemain can the two losses in operating cost produce a gain of net revenue to both. And each increase of unnatural tonnage, where offset by a loss of natural business, instead of serving to lighten the fixed charges, becomes a dead weight upon all the remaining traffic. The commonest exemplification of this is found in the circuitous transportation of goods, instances of which will be given later.
The second case in which the principle of joint cost fails to justify charges fixed according to what the traffic will bear may arise in the invasion of two remote markets by one another; or, as it might be more aptly phrased, in the overlapping of two distant markets. A railroad is simultaneously transporting goods of like quality in opposite directions. Chicago is selling standard hardware in New York, while New York is doing the same thing in Chicago. Prices are the same in both markets. Of course if the two grades of hardware are of unequal quality, or if they are like goods produced at different cost, an entirely distinct phase of territorial competition is created. But we are assuming that these are standard goods and that there are no such differences either in quality or efficiency of production. What is the result? Is each increment of business to the railroad a gain to it and to the community? The goods being produced at equal cost in both places, the transportation charge must be deducted from profits. For it is obvious that the selling price cannot be much enhanced. The level of what the traffic will bear is determined not, as usual, by the value of the goods but by other considerations. The traffic will bear relatively little, no matter how high its grade. The result is that the carrier, in order to secure the tonnage, must accept it at a very low rate, despite the length of the haul.
This is the familiar case of the special or commodity rate granted to build up business in a distant market. Special rates confessedly form three-fourths of the tonnage of American railways, as has already been said. The assumption is usually made that such traffic is a gain to the railways, justified on the principle of joint cost as already explained. But does it really hold good in our hypothetical case? There is a gain of traffic in both directions, to be sure. But must it not be accepted at so low a rate that it falls perilously near the actual operating cost? It is possible that even here it may add something to the carriers' revenue, and thereby lighten the joint costs in other directions. But how about the community and the shipping producers? Are any more goods sold? Perhaps the widened market may stimulate competition, unless that is already keen enough among local producers in each district by itself. The net result would seem to be merely that the railroads' gain is the shippers' loss. There is no addition to, but merely an exchange of, place values. Both producers are doing business at an abnormal distance under mutually disadvantageous circumstances. It may be said, perhaps, that the situation will soon correct itself. If the freight rates reduce profits, each group of producers will tend to draw back from the distant field. This undoubtedly happens in many cases. But the influence of the railway is antagonistic to such withdrawal. It is the railway's business to widen, not to restrict, the area of markets. "The more they scatter the better it is for the railroads." "Keep everyone in business everywhere." And if necessary to give a fillip to languishing competition, do so by a concession in rates. Is there not danger that with a host of eager freight solicitors in the field, and equally ambitious traffic managers in command, a good thing may be overdone, to the disadvantage of the railway, the shippers and the consuming public?
An objection to this chain of reasoning arises at this point. Why need the public or other shippers be concerned about the railways' policy in this regard? Is not each railway the best judge for itself of the profitableness of long-distance traffic? Will it not roughly assign limits to its own activities in extending business, refusing to make rates lower than the actual incidental cost of operation? And are not all low long-distance rates, in so far as they contribute something toward joint cost, an aid to the short haul traffic? The answer will in a measure depend upon our choice between two main lines of policy; the one seeking to lower average rates, even at the expense of increasing divergence between the intermediate and the long distance points, the other policy seeking, not so much lower rates as less discriminatory rates between near and distant points. In the constant pressure for reduced rates in order to widen markets it is not unnatural that the intermediate points, less competitive probably, should be made to contribute an undue share to the fixed sum of joint costs. The common complaint today is not of high rates but of relative inequalities as between places. It is a truism to assert that it matters less to a shipping point what rate it pays than that its rate, however high, should be the same for all competing places. This immediately forces us to consider the consumer. What is the effect upon the general level of prices of the American policy of making an extended market the touchstone of success, irrespective of the danger of wastes arising from overlapping markets? That the result may be a general tax upon production is a conclusion with which we shall have later to do. Such a tax, if it exists, would go far to offset the profit which unduly low freight rates in general have produced. In short, the problem is to consider the possible net cost to the American people of our highly involved and most efficient transportation system. Our markets are so wide, and our distances so vast, that the problem is a peculiarly American one.
Having stated the theory of these economic wastes, we may now proceed to consider them as they arise in practice. Concrete illustration of the effect of disregard of distance naturally falls into two distinct groups. Of these the first concerns the circuitous carriage of goods; the second, their transportation for excessive distances. Both alike involve economic wastes, in some degree perhaps inevitable, but none the less deserving of evaluation. And both practices, even if defensible at times, are exposed to constant danger of excess. It will be convenient also to differentiate sharply the all-rail carriage from the combined rail and water transportation. For as between railroads and waterways, the difference in cost of service is so uncertain and fluctuating that comparisons on the basis of mere distance have little value.
Recent instances of wasteful and circuitous all-rail transportation are abundant. A few typical ones will suffice to show how common the evil is. President Ramsay of the Wabash has testified as to the roundabout competition with the Pennsylvania Railroad between Philadelphia and Pittsburg by which sometimes as much as fifty-seven per cent. of traffic between those two points may be diverted from the direct route. "They haul freight 700 miles around sometimes to meet a point in competition 200 miles away."[251] Chicago and New Orleans are 912 miles apart, and about equally distant--2,500 miles--from San Francisco. The traffic manager of the Illinois Central states that that company "engages in San Francisco business directly via New Orleans from the Chicago territory, and there is a large amount of that business, and we engage in it right along."[252] Wool from Idaho and Wyoming may move west 800 miles, to San Francisco; and thence via New Orleans over the Southern Pacific route to Boston.[253] This case, therefore, represents a superfluous lateral haul of nearly a thousand miles between two points 2,500 miles apart. The Canadian Pacific used to take business for San Francisco, all rail, from points as far south as Tennessee and Arkansas, diverting it from the direct way via Kansas City.[254]
Goods moving in the opposite direction from San Francisco have been hauled to Omaha by way of Winnipeg, journeying around three sides of a rectangle by so doing, in order to save five or six cents per hundred pounds.[255] Between New York and New Orleans nearly one hundred all-rail lines may compete for business. The direct route being 1,340 miles, goods may be carried 2,051 miles via Buffalo, New Haven (Indiana), St. Louis and Texarkana.[256] A generation ago conditions were even worse, the various distances by competitive routes between St. Louis and Atlanta ranging from 526 to 1,855 miles.[257] New York business for the West was often carried by boat to the mouth of the Connecticut river, and thence by rail over the Central Vermont to a connection with the Grand Trunk for Chicago. To be moved at the outset due north 200 miles from New York on a journey to a point--Montgomery, Alabama--south of southwest seems wasteful; yet the New York Central is in the field for that business.[258] The map herewith, prepared in connection with the Alabama Midland case, shows the number of lines participating in freight carriage between New York and the little town of Troy, Alabama. It is nearly as uneconomical as in the old days when freight was carried from Cincinnati to Atlanta via the Chesapeake and Ohio, thence down by rail to Augusta and back to destination.[259] It was common for freight from Pittsburg to go by boat down to Cincinnati, only to return by rail via Pittsburg to New York at a lower rate than on a direct shipment.[260] Even right in the heart of eastern trunk line territory, such things occur in recent times. The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton prior to its consolidation with the Pere Marquette divided its eastbound tonnage from the rich territory about Cincinnati among the trunk lines naturally tributary. But no sooner was it consolidated with the Michigan road than its eastbound freight was diverted to the north--first hauled to Toledo, Detroit and even up to Port Huron, thence moving east and around Lake Erie to Buffalo.[261] In the Chicago field similar practices occur. Formerly the Northwestern road was charged with making shipments from Chicago to Sioux City via St. Paul. This required a carriage of 670 miles between points only 536 miles apart; and the complaint arose that the roundabout rate was cheaper than the rate by the direct routes. I am privately informed that the Wisconsin Central at present makes rates between these same points in conjunction with the Great Northern, the excess distance over the direct route being 283 miles. Complaints before the Elkins Committee[262] are not widely different in character. Thus it appears that traffic is hauled from Chicago to Des Moines by way of Fort Dodge at lower rates than it is carried direct by the Rock Island road, despite the fact that Fort Dodge is eighty miles north and a little west of Des Moines. The Illinois Central, having no line to Des Moines, pro-rates with the Minneapolis and St. Louis, the two forming two sides of a triangular haul. An interesting suggestion of the volume of this indirect routing is afforded by the statistics of merchandise shipped between American points which passes through Canada in bond.[263] The evidence of economic waste is conclusive.
A common form of wastefulness in transportation arises when freight from a point intermediate between two termini is hauled to either one by way of the other. Such cases are scattered throughout our railroad history. One of the delegates to the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1870, cites, as an instance of local discrimination, the fact that lumber from Chicago to Springfield, Illinois, could be shipped more cheaply by way of St. Louis than by the direct route.[264] And now a generation later, it appears that grain from Cannon Falls, forty-nine miles south of St. Paul on the direct line to Chicago, destined for Louisville, Kentucky, can be hauled up to St. Paul on local rates and thence on a through billing to destination, back over the same rails, considerably cheaper than by sending it as it should properly go.[265] The Hepburn Committee reveals shipments from Rochester, New York, to St. Louis, Minneapolis or California, all rail, on a combination of local rates to New York and thence to destination.[266] Presumably the freight was hauled three hundred miles due east and then retraced the same distance; as New York freight for southern California is today hauled to San Francisco by the Southern Pacific and then perhaps three hundred miles back over the same rails. Even if the rate must be based on a combination of low through rates and higher local rates, it seems a waste of energy to continue the five or six hundred miles extra haul. Yet the practice is common in the entire western territory. From New York to Salt Lake City by way of San Francisco is another instance in point.[267] Of course a short haul to a terminal to enable through trains to be made up presents an entirely different problem of cost from the abnormal instances above mentioned.[268]
Carriage by water is so much cheaper and as compared with land transportation is subject to such different rate-governing principles, that it deserves separate consideration. Mere distance, as has already been said, being really only one element in the determination of cost, a circuitous water route may in reality be more economical than direct carriage overland. Yet beyond a certain point, regard being paid to the relative cost per mile of the two modes of transport, water-borne traffic may entail economic wastes not incomparable to those arising in land transportation. In international trade, entirely confined to vessel carriage, a few examples will suffice for illustration. Machinery for a stamp mill, it was found, could be shipped from Chicago to San Francisco by way of Shanghai, China, for fifteen cents per hundredweight less than by way of the economically proper route. Were the goods ever really sent by so indirect a route?[269] It would appear so when wheat may profitably be carried from San Francisco to Watertown, Massachusetts, after having been taken to Liverpool, stored there, reshipped to Boston, thereafter, even paying the charges of a local haul of nearly ten miles;[270] or when shipments from Liverpool to New York may be made via Montreal to Chicago, and thence back to destination.[271] I am credibly informed that shipments of the American Tobacco Company from Louisville, Kentucky, to Japan used commonly to go via Boston. Denver testimony is to the effect that machinery, made in Colorado, shipped to Sydney, Australia, can be transported via Chicago for one-half the rate for the direct shipment; and that on similar goods even Kansas City could ship by the carload considerably cheaper by the same roundabout route. Conversely straw matting from Yokohama to Denver direct must pay $2.87 per hundred pounds; while if shipped to the Missouri river, five hundred miles east of Denver, and then back, the rate is only $2.05.[272]
As a domestic problem, water carriage confined to our own territory has greater significance in the present inquiry. Purely coastwise traffic conditions are peculiar and in the United States, as a rule, concern either the South Atlantic seaports or transcontinental business. As to the first-named class, the volume and importance of the traffic is immense. Its character may be indicated by a quotation from a railroad man.
"Now a great deal has been said, chiefly on the outside, about the Canadian Pacific Railway seeking by its long, circuitous and broken route to share in a tonnage as against more direct and shorter lines all rail, and I propose to show to you gentlemen that not only have we a precedent on which to claim differentials, many of them, and that we also have numerous precedents to show that there are numerous broken, circuitous water and rail lines operating all over the country that are longer and more circuitous than ours, and still they do operate with more or less success.... In saying this I do not wish to be understood as criticising the right of any road to go anywhere, even with a broken and circuitous line, to seek for business, so long as they are satisfied that taking all the circumstances into account such business will afford them some small measure of profit. * * *
"The distance by the Chesapeake & Ohio Road, Boston to Newport News, is 544 miles by water; Newport News to Chicago, 1071 miles, total 1615 miles from Boston to Chicago, against 1020 miles by the shortest all-rail line from Boston, showing the line via Newport News, 58 per cent. longer. The distance by the Chesapeake and Ohio from New York to Newport News is 305 miles, to which add 1071 miles, Newport News to Chicago, total 1376 miles, against the shortest all-rail line of 912 miles, 50.87 per cent. longer. Again the distance between Boston and Duluth by all-rail is 1382 miles, against 2195 miles via Newport News and Chicago, 58.82 per cent. longer by the broken route.
"The Southern Pacific Co., or System rather, in connection with the Morgan line steamers, carries business, via New York, New Orleans and Fort Worth, to Utah points at a differential rate. The distance from New York to Denver via water to New Orleans thence rail to Fort Worth is 3155 miles, against 1940 miles by the direct all-rail line, showing it to be longer via New Orleans 62.61 per cent."[273]
Allowing a constructive mileage of one-third for the last named water haul,[274] many of these even up fairly well with the all-rail carriage; although a route from New York to Kansas City by way of Savannah, Georgia, would appear to be an extreme case, owing to the relatively long haul by rail.[275] The increasing importance of Galveston and the necessity of a back haul to compensate for export business make it possible for that city to engage in business between New York and Kansas City, although the roundabout route is two and one-half times as long as the direct one.[276] As compared with these examples, it is no wonder that the competition for New York-Nashville or New England-Chattanooga business by way of Savannah, Mobile, or Brunswick, Georgia, is so bitter. The roundabout traffic thus reaches around by the southern ports and nearly up again to the Ohio river.[277]
The second great class of broken rail and water shipments consists of transcontinental business. Goods from New York to San Francisco commonly go by way of New Orleans or Galveston,[278] as well as by Canadian ports and routes.[279] In the opposite direction, goods are carried about 1000 miles by water to Seattle or Vancouver before commencing the journey east. But more important, as illustrating this point, is the traffic from the Central West which reaches the Pacific coast by way of Atlantic seaports. As far west as the Missouri, the actual competition of the trunk lines on California business has since 1894[280] brought about the condition of the "blanket" or "postage stamp" rate. The same competitive conditions which open up Denver or Kansas City to New York shippers by way of New Orleans or Galveston, enable the Southern Pacific Railroad or Cape Horn routes to solicit California shipments in western territory to be hauled back to New York, and thence by water all or part of the way to destination. How important this potential competition is--that is to say, what proportion of the traffic is interchanged by this route--cannot readily be determined.
Transportation over undue distances--the carriage of coals to Newcastle in exchange for cotton piece goods hauled to Lancashire--as a product of keen commercial competition may involve both a waste of energy and an enhancement of prices in a manner seldom appreciated. The transportation of goods great distances at low rates, while economically justifiable in opening up new channels of business, becomes wasteful the moment such carriage, instead of creating new business, merely brings about an exchange between widely separated markets, or an invasion of fields naturally tributary to other centres. The wider the market, the greater is the chance of the most efficient production at the lowest cost. The analogy at this point to the problem of protective tariff legislation is obvious. For a country to dispose of its surplus products abroad by cutting prices may not involve economic loss; but for two countries to be simultaneously engaged in "dumping" their products into each other's markets is quite a different matter. In transportation such cases arise whenever a community, producing a surplus of a given commodity, supplies itself, nevertheless, with that same commodity from a distant market. It may not be a just grievance that Iowa, a great cattle raising state, should be forced to procure her dressed meats in Chicago or Omaha;[281] for in this case some degree of manufacture has ensued in these highly specialized centres. But the practice is less defensible where the identical product is redistributed after long carriage to and from a distant point. Arkansas is a great fruit raising region; yet so cheap is transportation that dried fruits, perhaps of its own growing, are distributed by wholesale grocers in Chicago throughout its territory. The privilege of selling rice in the rice-growing states from Chicago is, however, denied by the Southern Railway Association.[282] An illuminating example of similar character occurs in the Southern cotton manufacture, as described by a Chicago jobber:
"Right in North Carolina there is one mill shipping 60 carloads of goods to Chicago in a season, and a great many of these same goods are brought right back to this very section.... I might add that when many of these heavy cotton goods made in this southeastern section are shipped both to New York and Chicago and then sold and reshipped South, they pay 15 cents to 20 cents per hundred less each way to New York and back than via Chicago. This doubles up the handicap against which Chicago is obliged to contend and renders the unfairness still more burdensome."[283]
The overweening desire of the large centres to enter every market is well exemplified by recent testimony of the Chicago jobbers.[284]
"A few years later, when the railroads established the relative rates of freight between New York and Philadelphia and the Southeast, and St. Louis, Cincinnati and Chicago and the Southeast, giving the former the sales of merchandise and the latter the furnishing of food products, the hardware consumed in this country was manufactured in England. At that time we, in Chicago, felt that we were going beyond the confines of our legitimate territory when we diffidently asked the merchants in western Indiana to buy their goods in our market. Today, a very considerable percentage of the hardware used in the United States is manufactured in the Middle West, and we are profitably selling general hardware through a corps of travelling salesmen in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and special lines in New England.
"What we claim is that we should not have our territory stopped at the Ohio river by any act of yours. It is not stopped, gentlemen, by any other river in America. It is not stopped by the greatest river, the Mississippi. It is not stopped by the far greater river, the Missouri. It is not stopped by the Arkansas; it is not stopped by the Rio Grande. It is not stopped even by the Columbia; and, even in the grocery business, it is not stopped by the Hudson. There are Chicago houses that are selling goods in New York city, groceries that they manufacture themselves. Mr. Sprague's own house sells goods in New York city, and Chicago is selling groceries in New England. As I say, even the Hudson river doesn't stop them."
All this record implies progressiveness, energy, and ambition on the part of both business men and traffic officers. Nothing is more remarkable in American commerce than its freedom from restraints. Elasticity and quick adaptation to the exigencies of business are peculiarities of American railroad operation. This is due to the progressiveness of our railway managers in seeking constantly to develop new territory and build up business. The strongest contrast between Europe and the United States lies in this fact. European railroads take business as they find it. Our railroads make it. Far be it from me to minimize the service rendered in American progress. And yet there are reasonable limits to all good things. We ought to reckon the price which must be paid for this freedom of trade.
One further aspect of economic waste may be mentioned, especially as bearing upon Federal regulation so far as it affects carload ratings and commercial rivalry between remote middlemen in the large cities and provincial jobbing interests. The actual cost of handling small shipments being about one-half that of carriage by carloads, the cheapest way in which to supply, let us say, the Pacific slope or Texas territory, is to encourage the local jobber who ships by carload over the long haul. For, obviously, distribution by less-than-carload lots from New York, or even Chicago direct, direct to the cross-road store, is bound to be a wasteful process by comparison.[285] But in addition there are also, of course, the social factors to be considered, which are of even greater weight.
The causes of economic waste in transportation are various. Not less than six may be distinguished. These are: (1) congestion of the direct route; (2) rate cutting by the weak circuitous line; (3) pro-rating practices in division of joint through rates; (4) desire for back-loading of empty cars; (5) strategic considerations concerning interchange of traffic with connections; and (6) attempts to secure or hold shippers in contested markets. These merit consideration separately in some detail.
Congestion of traffic upon the direct line is a rare condition in our American experience. Few of our railways are over-crowded with business. Their equipment may be overtaxed, but their rails are seldom worked to the utmost. Yet the phenomenal development of trunk line business since 1897 sometimes makes delivery so slow and uncertain that shippers prefer to patronize railways less advantageously located, even at the same rates. The congestion on the main stem of the Pennsylvania railway between Pittsburg and Philadelphia is a case in point.
Special rates or rebates often divert traffic. The weak lines, in that particular business, are persistently in the field and can secure tonnage only by means of concessions from what may be called the standard or normal rate. The differential rate is an outgrowth of this condition. The present controversy over the right of the initial line in transcontinental business to route the freight at will involves such practices. The carriers insist that they can stop the evil only by the exercise of choice in their connections. An interesting recent example is found in the Elkins Committee testimony. It appears that lumber from points in Mississippi destined for Cleveland instead of going by the proper Ohio river gateways was diverted to East St. Louis. The operation was concealed by billing it to obscure points,--Jewett, Ill., near East St. Louis, and Rochester, Ohio,--and there issuing a new bill of lading to destination:
SENATOR DOLLIVER. And these people carry it up to this little station near St. Louis and then transfer it to another station near Cleveland?
Mr. ROBINSON. Oh, no; to any point on the Central Traffic Association territory. In other words, it may go to Cleveland.
SENATOR DOLLIVER. Why do they bill it to Rochester?
Mr. ROBINSON. In order to get the benefit of keeping it in transit fifteen days without any extra cost, first.
SENATOR DOLLIVER. I do not see how that would affect the question of billing it to Rochester.
Mr. ROBINSON. Because that enables the wholesaler to have fifteen days extra time in which to sell the lumber.
The CHAIRMAN. Why haul it all around the country and then reduce the rate on that long haul?
Mr. ROBINSON. In order that roads that are not entitled naturally to this traffic may by this process get the traffic.
SENATOR DOLLIVER. What roads from Mississippi to East St. Louis?
Mr. ROBINSON. Any of the trunk lines--the Illinois Central, the Louisville or the Southern Railway lines. The roads in Mississippi south of the river are not parties to this arrangement, you understand. In fact, as fast as they find it out they break it up, or try to. They do not want their traffic diverted.
SENATOR KEAN. Does it not come down to this, that some road is trying to cheat another on the use of its cars?
Mr. ROBINSON. Not only that, but it is trying to get traffic that does not belong to it.[286]
Wherever a large volume of traffic is moving by an unnatural route, the first explanation which arises therefore is that rebates or rate-cutting are taking place.[287]
A third cause of diversion of traffic is akin to the second; and concerns the practices in pro-rating. Much circuitous transportation is due to the existence of independent transverse lines of railway which may participate in the traffic only on condition that it move by an indirect route. This situation is best described by reference to the following diagram. Let us suppose traffic to be moving by two routes passing through points B and C, and converging on A, which last-named point might be Chicago, St. Louis, New York or any other railroad centre. Cutting these two converging lines of railway, we will suppose a tranverse line passing through B and C. Obviously the proper function of this railway is as a feeder for the through lines, each being entitled to traffic up to the half-way point, D. But over and above serving as a mere branch, this road, desirous of extending its business, has a powerful incentive to extend operations. The longer the tranverse haul, the greater becomes its pro-rating division of the through rate with the main line. Traffic from C is of no profit to the tranverse road so long as it is hauled directly to A. But if hauled from C to the same destination by way of B, the profit may be enhanced in two ways. In the first place the pro-rating distance is greater; and secondly, such traffic from C not being naturally tributary to the main line B A but merely a surplus freight to be added to that already in hand, the main line A B is open to temptation to shrink its usual proportion of the through rate in order to secure the extra business. This same motive may on proper solicitation induce the other main line C A to accept traffic from B and its vicinity. The result is a greatly enhanced profit to the cross line and circuitous carriage of the goods in both directions around two sides of a triangle. Only recently in a case in Texas the Interstate Commerce Commission found that two roads thus converging on a common point were each losing to the other traffic which rightfully was tributary to its own line. In a recent case, ninety-nine per cent. of the business from Chatham to New York was moving over a route 249 miles long, when it might have gone directly only 144 miles, by pro-rating with another road.[288] Our illustrative examples are not fanciful in any degree.[289]
This roundabout carriage becomes of course increasingly wasteful in proportion to the width of angle between the main lines converging on the common point. And several cases indicate that in extreme instances the two main lines may converge on a common point from exactly opposite directions, while the transverse or secondary road or series of roads forms a wide and roundabout detour. The well known Pittsburg-Youngstown case, cited in the original Louisville & Nashville decision in 1887, serves as illustration. The Pennsylvania was competing from Pittsburg directly eastbound to New York with certain feeders of the New York Central lines which took out traffic bound for the same destination but leaving Pittsburg westbound.[290] Other instances of the same phenomenon occur at Chattanooga, where freight for New York may leave either northward or southward, at Kansas City and in fact at almost any important inland centre.
Another extreme form may arise even in the competition between two parallel trunk lines cut transversely by two independent cross roads. One of these latter may induce traffic to desert the direct route, to cut across to the other trunk line, to move over that some distance and then to be hauled back again to a point on the first main line where it may find a "cut" rate to destination. Grain sometimes used literally to meander to the seaboard in the days of active competition between the trunk lines. Wheat from Iowa and northern Illinois finally reached Portland, Maine, by way of Cincinnati in this manner, with a superfluous carriage of from 250 to 350 miles:
"Starting within 90 miles of Chicago, though billed due northeast to Portland, wheat has travelled first 97 miles due southwest to avail of the connection of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad for Cincinnati, and thence north to Detroit Junction, a total of 716 miles to reach the latter point and save 5 cents in freight. The direct haul through Chicago would have been 340 miles less, or a total of 376 miles only."[291]
Another witness describes the route as follows:
Property billed for Portland, Me., started 90 miles below Chicago, although Chicago is on a direct line, and took a southeasterly course, then to Springfield, from Springfield to Flora, then to Cincinnati, and then over the Hamilton and Dayton system to Detroit, there to take the Grand Trunk road to Portland. This was owing to the billing system adhered to here with great tenacity. Property ran around three sides of a square, and I lost money on some of that property.[292]
This ruinous diversion of freight seems to have been dependent upon the existence of active competition at Detroit and ceased when the Grand Trunk came to an agreement with the American lines. But there can be no doubt that wherever these cross lines exist there is a strong tendency toward diversion. In the recent hearings of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on railway rate regulation, a railroad witness again describes the operation:
Mr. VINING. Well, for instance, take the time when I was on the Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad. Its connection at the south was at Fort Wayne, with the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Road. We took lumber out of Michigan and wanted to send it east. We had to compete with lines that went by way of Detroit, that went perhaps through Canada and that in some cases were shorter. Of course, if we wanted to send lumber from Grand Rapids to New York we had to make at least as low a rate as was made by other lines leading from Grand Rapids to New York. That rate might be just the same from Fort Wayne as from Grand Rapids, so that we could not get any more than the low rate from Fort Wayne. We had to go in that case to the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway and say: "Here are so many carloads of lumber, or so much lumber, at Grand Rapids, a part of which could be shipped to New York if we had through rates that would enable us to move it. These other lines are carrying it for 25 cents a hundred pounds to New York. You join us in a through rate of 25 cents and we can give you some of that business." ... But if I were with a short line and wanted to negotiate with a long one, I should try to put my case just as strongly as possible before the long line. I should say to them: "We can not take 5 per cent. of a rate of 25 cents. It would not pay us. You know that; you can see that"; and they, as business men, would admit it. "Well," I would say, "give us 5 cents a hundred pounds and we will bring the business to you, and if you do not, we can not afford to do it."
SENATOR CULLOM. I think in some instances they have stated before us that they gave 25 per cent.
Mr. VINING. They might.[293]
Whenever the cross road was financially embarrassed, the tendency to diversion was increased. For then, of course, having repudiated fixed charges, the cross line could accept almost any rate as better than the loss of the traffic. And that this was in the past almost a chronic condition in western trunk line territory appears from the fact that eighteen out of the twenty-two roads cutting the Illinois Central between Chicago and Cairo have been in the hands of receivers since 1874.[294]
It not infrequently happens that the initial railroad may entirely control a roundabout route, whereas shipments by the most direct line necessitate a division of the joint rate with other companies. In such a case the initial line will naturally favor the indirect route, at the risk of economic loss to the community and even to its own shippers. An interesting illustration is afforded by a complaint of wheat growers at Ritzville in the state of Washington concerning rates to Portland, Oregon.[295] By direct line with low grades along the Columbia river the distance was 311 miles. This was composed of several independent but connecting links. The Northern Pacific on the other hand had a line of its own, 480 miles long, which moreover crossed two mountain ranges with heavy grades. It based its charges upon the cost of service by this roundabout and expensive line; and insisted upon its right to the traffic despite the wishes of the shippers. The Commission upheld the shippers' contention for the right to have their products carried to market in the most efficient manner.[296] Another instance on the Illinois Central is suggestive, concerning shipments from Panola, Illinois, to Peoria, a distance of about forty miles by the shortest line of connecting roads. Yet the Illinois Central having a line of its own via Clinton and Lincoln transported goods round three sides of a rectangle, a distance of 109 miles, presumably in order to avoid a pro-rating division of the through rate.[297] Of course elements of operating cost enter sometimes, as in the case of back-loading;[298] but in the main, the pro-rating consideration rules.
Rebates may or may not be given in connection with circuitous routing. Sometimes the same result may be obtained when one carrier merely shrinks its proportion of a joint through rate, leaving the total charge to the shipper unaffected. Of course it goes without saying that an implication of improper manipulation of rates does not always follow the diversion of freight from a direct line. The rate may be the same by several competitive routes, shipments going as a reward for energy, persistency, or personality of the agent. A recent case, concerning rates on lumber from Sheridan, Indiana, to New York illustrates this point.[299] Sheridan is twenty-eight miles north of Indianapolis on the Monon road. Quoting from the decision:
"In the division of joint through rates on percentages based on mileage, the defendant line naturally prefers arrangements with connections giving it the longest haul and largest percentages. Therefore, it carries this freight at rates based on a carriage through Indianapolis by a direct line eastward, while in fact it carries it in an opposite direction north and west by a longer route, the reduced ton mileage being accepted to secure the traffic."
The Iowa Central, cutting across the four main lines between Chicago and Omaha, derives a large revenue from such diversion. Coal from Peoria west, instead of moving by the shortest line to Omaha, is hauled across the first three to a connection with the devious Great Western line.[300] The motive is obvious.
A fourth cause of diversion of traffic has to do rather with the operating than the traffic department. An inequality of tonnage in opposite directions may make it expedient to solicit business for the sake of a back load. The Canadian Pacific may engage in San Francisco-Omaha business by way of Winnipeg, because of the scarcity of tonnage east bound. The traffic to and from the southeastern states is quite uneven in volume. The preponderance of bulky freight is north bound to the New England centres of cotton and other manufacture; while from the western cities, the greater volume of traffic is south bound, consisting of agricultural staples and food stuffs. To equalize this traffic it may often be desirable to secure the most roundabout business. A disturbing element of this sort in the southern field has always to be reckoned with. A good illustration elsewhere occurs in the well known St. Cloud case.[301] The Northern Pacific accepted tonnage for a most circuitous haul to Duluth, but seems to have done so largely in order to provide lading for a preponderance of "empties." In this case it did not lower the normal rate but accepted it for a much longer haul.
Not unlike the preceding cause, also, is a fifth, the desire to be in position to interchange traffic on terms of equality with powerful connections. Mr. Bowes, traffic manager of the Illinois Central, justifying the participation of this road in Chicago-San Francisco business by way of New Orleans, well stated it as follows:[302]
"Of course the Southern Pacific Railroad, as you gentlemen know, originate and control a very large traffic, which they can deliver at various junctions; at New Orleans, where they have their long haul to the Missouri river, and we naturally want some of that business, a long haul traffic to New Orleans, and in giving it to them we place them under obligations to reciprocate and give us some traffic. That is one of the things that occurs to a railroad man as to increasing the volume and value of his traffic for the benefit of his company."
A sixth and final reason for diversion of traffic from the direct line may be partly sentimental, but none the less significant. It concerns the question of competition at abnormal distances. We may cite two railroad witnesses, who aptly describe the situation. "We can haul traffic in competition, and we frequently do, as I stated, at less than cost, or nearly so, in order to hold the traffic and our patrons in certain territory--Kansas City for instance--but we do not like to do it."[303] Or again, "The Charleston freight is not legitimately ours.... We make on these through rates from Chicago to Charleston, for instance, scarcely anything. But it is an outpost. We must maintain that or have our territory further invaded."[304] In other words, the circuitous or over-long distance haul is a natural though regrettable outcome of railroad competition.
* * * * *
What are the effects of this American practice of unduly disregarding distance as a factor in transportation? Not less than five deserve separate consideration in some detail. It inordinately swells the volume of ton-mileage; it dilutes the ton-mile revenue; it produces rigidity of industrial conditions; it stimulates centralization both of population and of industry, and it is a tax upon American production.
One cannot fail to be impressed with the phenomenal growth of transportation in the United States, especially in recent years. It appears as if its volume increased more nearly as the square of population than in direct proportion to it.[305] But do these figures represent all that they purport to show? Every ton of freight which moves from Chicago to San Francisco over a line one thousand miles too long adds 1000 ton miles to swell a fictitious total. Every carload of cotton goods hauled up to Chicago to be redistributed thence in the original territory and every ton of groceries or agricultural machinery exchanged between two regions with adequate facilities for production of like standard goods contribute to the same end. How large a proportion of this marvellous growth of ton mileage these economic wastes contribute can never be determined with certainty. That their aggregate is considerable cannot be questioned.
These practices must considerably dilute the returns per mile for service rendered by American carriers--in even greater degree than they enhance the apparent volume of transportation. Long-distance rates must always represent a low revenue per ton mile, owing to the fixed maximum for all distances determined by what the traffic will bear. Furniture made in North Carolina for California consumption[306] cannot be sold there in competition above a certain price. The greater the distance into which the possible margin of profit is divided, the less per mile must be the revenue left for the carrier. Yet this is not all. Such would be true of simply over-long distance carriage. But to this we must add the fact that some of this long-haul tonnage reaches its remote destination over a roundabout line, which increases the already over-long carriage by from twenty-five to seventy-five per cent. It is apparent at once that a still greater dilution of the average returns must follow as a result. From 1873 down to 1900 the long and almost uninterrupted decline of rates is an established fact. Has the volume of this economic waste increased or diminished in proportion to the total traffic throughout this period? If it is relatively less today, at a time when ton mile rates are actually rising, it would be of interest to know how far such economies offset the real increases of rates which have been made. Rates might conceivably rise a little, or at all events remain constant, coincidently with a fall in ton mile revenue produced through savings of this sort.
The third result of undue disregard of distance is a certain inelasticity of industrial conditions. This may occur in either of two ways. The rise of new industries may be hindered, or a well-merited relative decline of old ones under a process of natural selection may be postponed or averted. The first of these is well set forth as follows:[307]
"It is always considered desirable to have a long haul, and the rates on a long haul should be much less, in proportion to distance, than on a short haul. This is a principle of rate-making which has grown up as one of the factors in the evolution of the railroad business in this country, and it has greatly stimulated the movement of freight for long distances, has brought the great manufacturing centres in closer touch with the consumer at a distance and the producer in closer touch with centres of trade. It has been of undoubted benefit to both, though it may oftentimes retard the growth of new industries by a system of rates so preferential as to enable the manufacturer a long distance from the field of production of raw material to ship the raw material to his mills, manufacture it and return the manufactured goods cheaper than the local manufacturer could afford to make it, and thus, while building up the centres of manufacture, have retarded the growth of manufacturing in the centres where the raw material is produced."
The other aspect of industrial rigidity is manifested through the perpetuation of an industry in a district, regardless of the physical disabilities under which it is conducted. Another quotation describes it well.[308]
SENATOR CARMACK. Is it the policy of the roads, wherever they find an industry established, to keep it going by advantages in the way of rates regardless of changes in economic conditions?
Mr. TUTTLE. I think in so far as it is possible for them to do so. It has not been possible in all cases. We could not keep iron furnaces running in New England; they are all gone.
One cannot for a moment doubt the advantages of such a policy as a safeguard against violent dislocating shocks to industry. It may render the transition to new and better conditions more gradual and easier to bear. It has been of inestimable value to New England, as exposed to the competition of newer manufactures in the Central West. But on the other hand, it is equally true that in the long run the whole country will fare best when each industry is prosecuted in the most favored location--all conditions of marketing as well as of mere production being considered. If Pittsburg is the natural centre for iron and steel production, it may not be an unmixed advantage to the country at large, however great its value to New England, to have the carriers perpetuate the barbed wire manufacture at Worcester.[309] Each particular case would have to be decided on its merits. My purpose at present is not to pass judgment on any of them but merely to call attention to the effect of such practices upon the process of industrial selection.
In the fifth place, every waste in transportation service is in the long run a tax upon the productivity of the country. More men may be employed, more wages paid, more capital kept in circulation; but it still remains true that the coal consumed, the extra wages paid and the rolling stock used up in the carriage of goods, either unduly far or by unreasonably roundabout routes, constitute an economic loss to the community. In many cases, of course, it may be an inevitable offset for other advantages. In the Savannah Freight Bureau case[310] (map, p. 648, infra) Valdosta, Georgia, was 158 miles from Savannah, while it was 275 and 413 miles by the shortest and longest lines respectively from Charleston. Valdosta's main resource for fertilizer supplies, other things being equal, would naturally be Savannah, the nearer city. Yet in the year in question it appeared that nine-tenths of the supply was actually drawn from Charleston; and much of it was hauled 413 instead of a possible 158 miles. No wonder the complainants alleged "that somebody in the end must pay for that species of foolishness." Whenever the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company succeeds in selling goods of no better grade or cheaper price in territory naturally tributary to Pittsburg, a tax is laid upon the public to that degree.[311] When Chicago and New York jobbers each strive to invade the other's field, the extra revenue to the carriers may be considerable; but it is the people who ultimately pay the freight. The analogy to the bargain counter is obvious. The public are buying something not necessary for less than cost; while the carriers are selling it for more than it is worth. Economies would redound to the advantage of all parties concerned.
* * * * *
What remedy is possible for these economic wastes? Both the carriers and the public have an interest in their abatement. The more efficient industrial combinations have taken the matter in hand, either by strategic location of plants or, as in the case of the United States Steel Corporation, by the utilization of a Pittsburg base price scheme, with freight rates added.[312] But probably the large proportion of tonnage is still shipped by independent and competing producers. To this traffic the railways must apply their own remedies. Either one of two plans might be of service. The right to make valid agreements for a division either of traffic or territory, if conceded to the carriers by law under proper governmental supervision, would be an effective safeguard. This would mean the repeal of the present prohibition of pooling. The amendment of the long and short haul clause in 1910 (p. 601 infra) seems likely to do much toward accomplishing the same result.
Agreements between carriers previous to 1887 were often employed to obviate unnecessary waste in transportation. The division of territory between the eastern and western lines into the southern states is a case in point. Thirty years ago competition for trade throughout the South was very keen between the great cities in the East and in the Middle West. Direct lines to the northwest from Atlanta and Nashville opened up a new avenue of communication with ambitious cities like Chicago, St. Louis and Cincinnati. The state of Georgia constructed the Western and Atlantic Railroad in 1851 for the express purpose of developing this trade. As western manufactures developed, a keen rivalry between the routes respectively east and west of the Alleghany mountains into the South was engendered. A profitable trade in food products by a natural, direct route from the Ohio gateways was, however, jeopardized by ruinous rates made by the warring trunk lines to the northern seaboard. Corn, oats, wheat and pork came down the coast and into the South through the back door, so to speak, by way of Savannah and other seaports. On the other hand the eastern lines into the South were injuriously affected by the retaliatory rates on manufactured goods made by the western lines for shipments from New York and New England. Freight from each direction was being hauled round three sides of a rectangle. Finally in 1878 a reasonable remedy was found in a division of the field and an agreement to stop all absurdly circuitous long hauls into one another's natural territory. A line was drawn through the northern states from Buffalo to Pittsburg and Wheeling; through the South from Chattanooga by Montgomery, Ala., to Pensacola. Eastern lines were to accept goods for shipment only from their side of this line to points of destination in the South also on the eastern side of the boundary. Western competitors were to do the same. The result was the recognition of natural rights of each to its territory. This agreement has now formed the basis of railway tariffs into the southern states for almost a generation. Similar agreements, on a less extensive scale, are commonly used to great advantage. Thus in the "common point" territory formerly tributary to Wilmington, Savannah and Charleston, the first named city insisted upon its right to an equal rate with the other two, no matter how great the disparity of distance. The Southern Railway and Steamship Association arbitrated the matter, fixing a line beyond which Wilmington was to be excluded.[313] Obviously such agreements have no force in law at the present time. The only way to give effect to them is for connecting carriers to refuse to make a joint through rate. This effectually bars the traffic. Moreover entire unanimity of action is essential. Every road must be a party to the compact. Otherwise the traffic will reach its destination by shrunken rates and a more circuitous carriage even than before.
One cannot fail to be impressed in Austria and Germany with the economic advantages of an entirely unified system of operation. No devious routing is permitted. Certain lines are designated for the heavy through traffic, and concentration on them is effected to the exclusion of all others. Between Berlin and Bremen, for example, practically all through traffic is routed by three direct lines. No roundabout circuits occur because of the complete absence of railway competition. No independent lines have to be placated. The sole problem is to cause the tonnage to be most directly and economically transported. And this end is constantly considered in all pooling or through-traffic arrangements with the railway systems independently operated.
The Prussian pooling agreements with the Bavarian railways are typical. Each party to the contract originally bound itself not to route freight over any line exceeding the shortest direct one in distance by more than twenty per cent. Compare this with some of our American examples of surplus haulage of fifty or sixty per cent! And within the last year, the renewal of these interstate governmental railway pools in Germany has provided for a reduction of excessive haulage to ten per cent. The problem of economical operation in Austria-Hungary with its mixed governmental and private railways is more difficult. But no arrangements are permitted which result in such wastes as we have instanced under circumstances of unlimited competition in the United States.
A more consistent enforcement of the long and short haul principle might provide a remedy almost as effective as pooling. The Alabama Midland decision nullified a salutary provision of the law of 1887 by holding that railway competition at the more distant point might create such dissimilarity of circumstances as to justify a higher rate to intermediate stations. Turn to our diagram on page 282 and observe the effect. Traffic around two sides of a triangle from A to C by way of B is carried at a rate equal to the charge for the direct haul from A to C; or it may be even at a lower differential rate. Complaint arises from the intermediate points y and x of relatively unreasonable charges. The roundabout route replies with the usual argument about a small contribution toward fixed charges from the long haul tonnage, which lessens the burden upon the intermediate rate. This is cogent enough up to a certain point. It might justify a lower rate to D, on the natural division of line territory. It might be defensible on principle to accord D a lower rate than x or possibly even than y. To deny the validity of lower rates to z or C would however at once follow from the same premises.
Under the new long and short haul clause, what may be done by the Interstate Commerce Commission? This body roughly determining the location of D, a natural division point, would then refuse to permit A B, B C to charge less to either z or C than to any intermediate point, x, B or y. Coincidently it would bar the other road A C, C B from any lower through rate to points beyond D, such as x, B or y than to any intermediate station. Two courses would be open to the roads. They must either mutually withdraw from all business beyond D or reduce their rates to all intermediate points correspondingly. In a sparsely settled region with little local business, they might conceivably choose the latter expedient. But in the vast majority of cases the roads would prefer to withdraw from the unreasonably distant fields.[314] Simultaneously taken by each line, such action would put an end to the economic waste. At the same time it would terminate one of the most persistent causes of rebates and personal favoritism. To be sure it would generally operate in favor of the strong, direct lines as against the weak and roundabout ones. Great benefit would accrue to the Pennsylvania, the Illinois Central or the Union Pacific railroads. The activities of the parasitic roads and the scope of parasitic operations by the substantial roads would inevitably be curtailed. Much justice would be done and much local irritation and popular discontent would be allayed.
FOOTNOTES:
[249] P. 133, supra.
[250] Quarterly Journal of Economics, V, 1891, p. 438.
[251] Senate (Elkins) Committee Report, 1905, III, pp. 2152-2153. The transverse Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburg seems to be the feeder for the New York Central and the Reading.
[252] Ibid., IV, p. 2849.
[253] U. P. Merger case: Supreme Court, October term, No. 820, Appellant's Brief of Facts, pp. 135-193 and also p. 493.
[254] Question of Canadian-Pacific Differentials, Hearings, etc., Oct. 12, 1898, p. 115. Privately printed. Cf. also the Sunset Route, ibid., p. 116.
[255] 51st Congress, 1st sess., Sen. Rep., No. 847, p. 176.
[256] Pubs. Amer. Stat. Ass., June, 1896, p. 73.
[257] Reports Internal Commerce, 1876, pp. 54-59.
[258] Map in Brief of Ed. Baxter, U. S. Supreme Court in the Alabama Midland case.
[259] Windom Committee, II, p. 795.
[260] Cullom Committee, p. 530. Hudson also cites similar cases from the Hepburn Committee. Cf. also Report on Internal Commerce, 1876, App. p. 57.
[261] New York Evening Post, Sept. 30, 1905.
[262] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, III, p. 1831.
[263] Only once compiled in detail. U. S. Treasury Dept., Circular No. 37, 1898. The volume of traffic by tons between points in designated states by way of Canada was as follows:
From Illinois to California 11,800 From Illinois to New Jersey 80,000 From Illinois to Pennsylvania 123,000 From Kentucky to Pennsylvania 1,005 From Kentucky to New York 5,516 From Missouri to Pennsylvania 5,000 From Pennsylvania to Missouri 13,824 From New York to Kentucky 3,357 From New York to Missouri 12,869 From New York to Tennessee 609 From Ohio to Pennsylvania 26,801 From Pennsylvania to Ohio 5,251 From Ohio to New York 211,657 From New York to Ohio 55,243
[264] Debates, II, p. 1646, cited in University of Illinois Studies, March, 1904, p. 21.
[265] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, I, pp. 32-34. Cf. also 10 I. C. C. Rep., 650. Another good instance on Arizona is in 16 Idem, 77.
[266] Page 2031.
[267] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, II, p. 921.
[268] Cullom Committee, II, p. 101.
[269] 10 I.C.C. Rep., 81.
[270] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, II, p. 919.
[271] Ibid., p. 1624.
[272] 11 I.C.C. Rep., 508.
[273] Question of Canadian Pacific Freight Differentials, Hearings, etc., Oct. 12, 1898, p. 17. Privately printed. See also pp. 72 and 116 on the same point.
[274] Record Cincinnati Freight Bureau case, II, p. 306.
[275] Hearings, Question of Canadian Pacific Freight Differentials, Oct. 12, 1898, p. 55.
[276] U. S. Industrial Commission, IV, p. 134.
[277] 55th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Doc. No. 39, p. 88.
[278] By water from New York, 1800 miles to New Orleans, with 2489 miles by rail. Or to Galveston 2300 miles with 2666 miles by rail, a total of 4966 miles. The direct line, all rail, is about 3300 miles. Allowing constructive mileage of 3 to 1 for water carriage, they are far from equal.
[279] Texas cotton bound for Yokohama by way of Seattle.
[280] On these matters the Record of the Business Men's League of St. Louis case before the Interstate Commerce Commission, 9 Int. Com. Rep., 318; and the Hearings on Canadian Pacific Differentials are illuminating.
[281] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, III, p. 1830.
[282] Record before the I.C.C.; Cincinnati Freight Bureau case, I, p. 166.
[283] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, III, pp. 2540-2541.
[284] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, III, pp. 2538 and 2550.
[285] Briefly discussed in the St. Louis Business Men's League case: 9 Int. Com. Rep., 318.
[286] Testimony, III, p. 2495 et seq.
[287] The Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Corporations on the Transportation of Petroleum, 1906, affords admirable examples. Vide, pp. 5, 7, 14 and the map at p. 256.
[288] 23 I.C.C. Rep., 263.
[289] Similar triangular cross-road competition is in evidence in the Wichita, Kan., cases on export grain, p. 232, supra.
[290] 1 I.C.C. Rep., 32; and Industrial Commission, XIX, p. 442.
[291] Statements taken before the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the U. S. Senate with respect to the Transportation Interests of the U. S. and Canada. Washington, 1890, p. 616. Cf. chap. X, p. 363, infra; also the Wichita cases, in chap. VII, p. 232, supra.
[292] Ibid., p. 631.
[293] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, II, p. 1706.
[294] Quoted from Acworth, 55th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. doc. 39, p. 33.
[295] Newlands v. Nor. Pac. R. R. Co.; 6 Int. Com. Rep., 131.
[296] Cf. the case of the C. H. & D. R. R. on p. 271, supra.
[297] Record, Illinois Railroad Commission, concerning Reasonable Maximum Rates, 1905, p. 165.
[298] Cf. p. 287, infra.
[299] 10 I.C.C. Rep., 29.
[300] Boston Transcript, Oct. 14, 1905.
[301] 8 Int. Com. Rep., 346; reprinted in our Railway Problems, chap. XI.
[302] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, IV, p. 2850.
[303] President Ramsey of the Wabash; Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, III, p. 1971.
[304] Windom Committee, II, p. 796.
[305] P. 78, supra.
[306] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, III, p. 2008.
[307] Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, IV, p. 3115.
[308] Idem, II, p. 976.
[309] Specifically described in Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, II, p. 923.
[310] 7 Int. Com. Rep., 458; reprinted in our Railway Problems, chap. XII.
[311] "Practically it may be declared that the public, considered as distinct from railway owners, must pay for all the transportation which it receives." ... H. T. Newcomb in Pubs. Am. Stat. Ass., N. S. Nr. 34, p. 71.
[312] Agreements for a scale of cross freights by wholesalers' or jobbers' associations as in Ohio for groceries or hardware are equally effective.
[313] 7 Int. Com. Rep., 458; in our Railway Problems, chap. XII.
[314] This problem is involved in the Youngstown-Pittsburg case already mentioned. In the original Louisville and Nashville decision the Commission apparently preferred to encourage competition even at the risk of its being roundabout and "illegitimate." But after the railway attorneys expanded the "rare and peculiar" cases to cover all kinds of competition, the Commission apparently regretted its earlier position. Cf. 1 I.C.C. Rep., 82; 5 Idem, 389; and especially the brief of Ed. Baxter, Esq., in the Alabama Midland case, U. S. Supreme Court, Oct. term, 1896, No. 563, p. 118.