Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

and complain perhaps of injustice when they fail. It was made very clear by the evidence produced in behalf of the railroads, that the exceptionally favorable rates which were given to certain localities were in some cases given to build up trade centers; and as they had had that effect, and large establishments had been located at such centers, invited by the favoring rates, it was urged that there would be injustice in now compelling the roads to go back to the rule of equality. Of this it may be said, first, that, as between different localities, it is no sound reason for discriminating in favor of one as against another, that the purpose is to build up the favored locality as a trade center; and, second, if the discrimination has existed and has had its effect, the fact that large establishments have thereby been encouraged is no reason why the injustice should be perpetuated. This statute aims at equality of right and privilege, not less between towns than between individuals; and it will no more sanction preferential rates for the purpose of perpetuating distinctions. than of creating them.

These general views will indicate, as far as we deem at this time necessary, the bounds within which the railroad managers must limit their action in making charges which are greater in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of the like kind of property for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance. With responsibility to the law and to the restraining power of the Commission, in case the bounds are exceeded, it may confidently be expected that all carriers will bring themselves into conformity with the general law so far as it may be found reasonably practicable, and that the occasions for special interference will not be numerous. Our observation and investigations so far made lead to the conclusion, that strict conformity to the general rule is possible in large sections of the country, without material injury to either public or private interests; and that in other sections the exceptions can be and ought to be made much less numerous than they have been hitherto, and that when exceptions are admitted the charges should be less disproportionate. Very many of the roads,

as we are informed, have so arranged their tariffs as to make no exception whatever; and where that has been proved to be reasonably feasible, return to the former custom cannot be tolerated. In any case in which a company fails to bring its tariffs into conformity with the general rule, if parties whose interests are thereby unfavorably affected complain, it must be prepared to justify its action by a showing of circumstances and conditions which render it just and reasonable.

In the views above expressed the members of the Commission, after full consideration, are unanimous.

The order for temporary relief which was made in favor of the petitioner will be allowed to remain in force until the day originally limited for its expiration, and in the meantine its officers will have the opportunity to make thorough revision of its freight and passenger tariffs, in order to bring them as nearly as may be reasonably feasible into harmony with the general rule of the statute, and with the views expressed in this opinion. That they may be brought much nearer to conformity than they now are, without the sacrifice of any substantial interest, we have very little question; and as business adapts itself to the new principle established by Congress, it will no doubt be found that exceptions can safely and steadily be made less and less numerous.

NOTE. Like orders to this were made in the other pending cases.

THE CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. THE SAME v. THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY . THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

Tried June 16 and 17, 1887.-Decided July 14, 1887.

The defendants adopted a regulation, that they would not sell tickets for and over the line of a connecting road, unless such connecting road would abstain from paying commissions to their agents on the sales made, and would make promise to that effect. Such a regulation is reasonable, and therefore legal.

A railroad company has a right to insist that its agents shall be its employees exclusively, and it is not obliged to permit any other company to make them its employees also.

The requirement in the Act to Regulate Commerce that common carriers shall afford all reasonable, proper and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several lines, and those connecting therewith," will not require a railroad company to sell through tickets over the line of a road whose managers persist in offering commissions to the agents who sell such tickets. The practice of paying commissions to the agents of other roads on tickets sold over the road of the company paying the same, condemned as demoralizing, and as an improper drain on corporate resources.

If a passage ticket over several roads is a reasonable facility of travel, the privilege of paying a commission to the agent who sells it, and who would be required by duty to his employer to sell it when called for, without any commission therefor, cannot be regarded as an incident to the facility, and therefore cannot be insisted on.

William Brown, for complainants.

John Scott, James A. Logan, J. T. Brooks and Frank Loomis, for defendants.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

SCHOONMAKER, Commissioner.

The complaints in these cases are founded upon the third section of the Act to Regulate Commerce, and charge violations of that section by the defendant companies in refusing certain facilities for receiving, forwarding, and delivering passengers to complainants' lines, consisting of through or coupon tickets, which, being afforded to other and competing companies, give, the complainants allege, undue and unreasonable preference to those companies. The questions involved in these three cases are so similar that they can properly be considered and disposed of together.

The material facts found by the Commission are as follows:

The Pennsylvania Companies, defendants herein, own or control connecting lines of railroad from New York and Philadelphia to Chicago and St. Louis. The New York Central Company, defendant, owns or controls connecting lines from New York to Chicago. Through passenger tickets are sold by the defendants over the routes they control to the termi-

nal points reached by their respective lines. At Chicago the roads of the complainants have their eastern termini in proximity to the termini of the defendants' lines, and from there extend westerly to Kansas City and other points. Several other roads, competitors of complainants, also lead from Chicago to Kansas City and other western points, and have substantially similar means of connection with the defendants' lines for the transfer of passengers and baggage.

By mutual arrangement between the various companies whose roads form continuous lines from New York, Philadelphia, and other places on the routes of defendants' roads in New York and Pennsylvania, to Kansas City, through or coupon passenger tickets have been sold by the defendant companies at their stations in New York and Pennsylvania, over their own respective lines, to Chicago, and thence to Kansas City, over the roads of the complainants or other such connecting roads as passengers might prefer. For passengers from the West to the East through tickets of a like character have been sold by the complainants and other companies, from Kansas City to points on the roads of the defendants desired to be reached by travelers, in New York, Pennsylvania, or other States. Through tickets of this character with corresponding checking of baggage are a manifest accommodation to travelers, and afford material facilities in making long journeys. In the sale of these tickets the company selling them was understood to act as the agent of the other roads over which the traveler might pass on his journey, and each company was deemed responsible to the traveler for its own acts in conveying the holder of the ticket.

For several years prior to the 5th of April, 1887, when the Act to Regulate Commerce took effect, substantially all the railroad companies of the country, including the complainants and defendants, paid commissions, varying in amount from two dollars to five dollars a ticket, to the ticket agents of other companies by whom the through tickets were sold. These commissions sometimes aggregated as much as the salaries paid the ticket agents by the companies that employed them. The commissions paid by complainants and some other companies since the first of April last have been

fixed by agreement at one dollar a ticket from Chicago to Kansas City.

The defendant companies and some others for about two years have made earnest efforts to abate the practice of paying commissions. The testimony shows that the commissions paid on through tickets have usually amounted to from twenty to twenty-five per cent. of the receipts from such sales, and that the official reports of the companies have concealed this expense, and only showed the net receipts from passenger tickets after deducting the commissions.

About a month before the Act to Regulate Commerce became operative the defendant companies took steps to procure agreements with their connecting companies to abolish the commission business altogether.

With this end in view they sent printed circulars, on or about the 15th of March last, to their connecting companies, expressing their willingness to continue to act as agents in the sale of through tickets, and stating the nature of the agreement required. The circular of the Pennsylvania Company stated as follows:

"In view of the severe penalties for infractions of the law, neither of these companies can consent to act as agents for your company (if you should desire it to do so) in the issuance and sale of through tickets except upon the following conditions:

"First. Your authority to so act.

"Second. Your agreement that the proposed joint tariffs will be satisfactory.

"Third. Your agreement not to issue or cause to be issued any new forms of through tickets over any of our lines without our formal consent thereto.

"Fourth. Your promise not to pay, either directly or indirectly, a commission or any consideration whatsoever to agents or employees of these companies, or to any other person or persons, on account of the purchase or sale of tickets issued by either of these companies at its regular ticket offices, or at other places in the territory adjacent thereto.

“Fifth. Your agreement to confine your own issue of tickets

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »