IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION. In equity. THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION vs. THE DETROIT, GRAND Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company. The answer of the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company to the petition of the Interstate Commerce Commission, filed against it in the above-entitled cause. First. Respondent admits all of the averments of fact contained in said petition, and it also admits the finding of facts embodied in the opinion of the Interstate Commerce Commission attached to and made a part of said petition as Exhibit C, to wit, the findings numbered respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. Second. In further answer to said petition respondent says that it has been the practice of railway companies engaged in interstate commerce, not only in the State of Michigan, but throughout the United States, to do free carting as a means of securing traffic at numerous stations on their respective lines of railway for many years past, and long before the passage of the interstate commerce act, and that this practice still continues. It has been and is deemed by respondent and the other railway companies referred to as legitimate as the expense of maintaining commercial agents at exceptional stations to solicit freight and other business for the road. It has also been the practice, which still continues at exceptional stations on the lines of many railroads engaged in interstate commerce business, to build, at large expense, systems of belt railroad, so called, for the purpose of securing business for the main line of railway, and over such belt roads cars, in connection with interstate traffic, are hauled between the main line of road of the company operating it and the places of business adjacent to and near the track of such belt system free of charge to the shipper. Respondent states, on information and belief, that such belt systems exist and are operated as aforesaid by the Michigan Central Railroad Company, in the State of Michigan, at the following-named places, to wit, at the city of Detroit, the city of Jackson, the city of Lansing, the city of Battle Creek. Systems of free carting are also carried on extensively by railroad companies in connection with interstate commerce traffic in the following-named cities: The city of Detroit, and city of Chicago in the State of Illinois; the cities of Toledo and Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, and the city of New York; and respondent is informed and believes, and so states the fact to be, that the practice prevails in numerous other cities in the United States, and by many different railway companies engaged in carrying interstate traffic. In all of these instances, in respect of free cartage as in respect of the belt systems of railway and free transportation thereon, the practice prevails only at exceptional stations where the business is of sufficient magnitude to warrant the carrier in incurring the expense, and such expense is deemed to be, in these instances, legitimate as a means of securing traffic for the railroad, and of affording increased facilities and despatch in doing its business. Third. Respondent further state's that on every railroad in the State of Michigan-and it is informed and believes that the same is true on every railroad in the United States-there are tracks constructed by the railway company, at its own expense, at exceptional stations on the line of road, leading from the main track of the road to private business establishments, which are used solely for delivering and receiving freight in the business between such private business establishments and the railway-much of which is interstate traffic-and without any charge being made by the railway company therefor, while other private business establishments at the same station of the railroad, and at other stations on the same railroad, are not afforded these advantages in connection with such traffic, but are compelled to incur the expense of carting to and from stations. The practice of the railway companies of the country in this regard has existed almost, if not quite, from the beginning of railroads in this country, and is believed to be fully justified by consideration of business economy, and that it does not infringe any provision of the interstate-commerce law. And yet respondent claims and submits that the practice involves more of the elements of discrimination than does the cartage system at Grand Rapids, here complained of. Fourth. Respondent's practice of free carting at said city of Grand Rapids was originally adopted and is still continued because it is less expensive to it than would be a change of its line of railroad so as to bring it into closer proximity to the business center of said city or the construction and operation of spur tracks from its main line of road into said business center, where the main-line tracks of its competitors, the Michigan Central and the Detroit, Lansing and Northern Railroad Companies, are laid in said city. Such free cartage has the additional advantage, wherever it exists, of enabling the carrier to promptly clear the freight buildings of traffic and prevent its burdensome and expensive accumulation, and it secures a method of order in delivering traffic from its buildings. Where the acceptance and removal of freight is left to consignees the tendency of all stations where the traffic is great is for consignees to make a convenience for themselves of the freight buildings of the railway company for storage of their freight, which leads to great embarrassment and expense to the company. And if consignees are left to receive their freight at the station there is no order observed, and in the nature of the business can not be, in their calls for freight. The freight can not be delivered in the order of its reception at the station, and the freight last received into the station is often first called for. To so make delivery always involves a considerable increase of expense to the company. The practice of delivering to the consignee also saves the expense of sending out to the consignees advice notes of the arrival of freight. Fifth. Respondent states that the free cartage at said city of Grand Rapids, or the extension of its railroad tracks into the business center of said city, is an absolute condition of respondent's procuring for its road a due and proper, or any considerable, part of the freight traffic of said city; and it avers that the matter in dispute involved in this cause exceeds the sum or value of $5,000, exclusive of costs. Sixth. The 2 cents a hundred pounds paid for cartage at said city of Grand Rapids by respondent is not paid alone for the cartage, but includes the services of the cartage agents, acting in behalf of respondents, in soliciting freight traffic for its road and collecting from consignees and consignors all bills for the freight charges of respondent on the traffic carried. The value of these services to the respondent, aside from the mere matter of carting the freight, is not less than one-third of the sum which respondent pays. Seventh. Respondent therefore claims and submits that in view of its own interest and the interest of the people of said city of Grand Rapids, and in view of the business relations between said city and the city of Ionia, the free cartage complained of is not an undue or an unreasonable preference or advantage to said city of Grand Rapids or to its merchants or shippers as against said city of Ionia or its merchants or shippers, and particularly as against said Mary O. Stone and Thomas Carten; and that it does not subject said city of Ionia or its merchants or shippers, and particularly said Mary O. Stone and Thomas Carten, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever, within the true meaning and intent of the interstate commerce law, and that it is not in conflict with the long and short haul clause (so called) of said law. E. W. MEDDAUGH, THE DETROIT, GRAND HAVEN AND By W. J. SPICER, Its general manager. Solicitor for Respondent. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, ss: I, Charles L. Fitch, clerk of the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and compared copy of the answer of the respondent filed in the proceedings of said court in said entitled cause and of the whole thereof. Witness my official signature and the seal of said court, at Grand Rapids, this 6th day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1892. CHARLES L. FITCH, [SEAL.] By Clerk. Deputy. |