carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of the Act." VII. It will thus be seen that the preceding the speech of the railroad Senator from California, Mr. Leland Stanford, on Monday. Almost immediately after Senator Cullom had made a clear exposition of the intent and meaning of the long- and short-haul provision, Mr. Stanford based his whole argument on an utter perversion of its fair construction. "The essence of this section is contained in the following words: 'It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance.' As Senator Cullom said, the qualifying words and phrases are full of meaning, and they furnish all the elasticity to the provision that is necessary to enable railroads to conform to the requirements of successful management. It was at first assumed by some of the objectors that this would require the charges for long distances to be proportioned to those for shorter distances. But the expression in the aggregate' plainly shows that it applies only to the total charge for the entire transportation. The same meaning is involved in the prohibition of unjust discrimination against localities. No one has yet shown that the obvious injustice of charging more for transportation from a nearer point to the same destination than from a more remote point, where the circumstances and conditions of the traffic are substantially the same, is justified on any general principle. If it is justified in any case, it must be due to exceptional circumstances, and then the prohibition would not apply. 66 'It has been claimed that this provision would compel railroads either to reduce their local rates or to increase their through rates in many cases where it would be disastrous to their interests and those of the communities which they serve. But it has nothing to do with the relations of through and local charges in the proper sense of the The circumstances and conditions of through and local traf terms. sections which we have analyzed, viz., the first, second, third, and fourth, deal with the question of the compensation of the common carrier, fic are substantially different. Under the bill a railroad engaged in inter-State commerce could not, in fixing its local rates, discriminate against localities by charging more for a shorter than for a longer distance for the same kind of freight transported under similar conditions; neither could it make a like discrimination in through rates, and it is hard to see why it should be permitted to do so. In almost any conceivable case it would be an unjust and unjustifiable discrimination between localities. "It has been said that the bill would give an advantage to shorter lines over longer ones between the same points. But the prohibition applies only to charges over the same line, and would not prevent a long line from putting its rates as low as those of a rival short line. It has also been said that it would force a railroad company controlling its own charges on its own road to conform them to its share of the compensation for a long haul over a line composed of several roads. But aside from the dissimilar circumstances and conditions in such cases the prohibition would only apply to the one line over which the traffic was carried, of however many different railroads it might be composed. · Again, it has been claimed that the act would prevent the reduction of rates to meet the competition of water routes which serve the same points as the railroads. But the existence of such routes and the necessity of low rates to compete with them and do any business to and from the points which they reach, would constitute such a difference of circumstances and conditions that within the requirements of business necessity the bill would undoubtedly allow the discriminination. "Much stress has been laid upon the effect which would be produced upon the grain interests of the Northwest and the cotton, iron, and other interests of the South. It is said that in order to bring our great grain supplies to the seaboard and send the surplus to foreign markets through rates must be lower than the railroads can afford for intermediate traffic. But suppose the circumstances and conditions and the circumstances and method of charging and receiving the same. By the first section the common carrier is are substantially similar-that is to say, a carload or a trainload of grain is destined for the port of New York, either for the local market or for shipment abroad, what reason is there why a line of railroads bringing it here should be allowed to charge less in the aggregate from Dakota than from Minnesota, from Minnesota than from Illinois, from Illinois than from Ohio? If it may charge as much for the shorter distance that is certainly as large a liberty as it can reasonably ask for. The restriction will have nothing to do with what may be charged for grain by the bushel or flour by the barrel between intermediate points. 'Low rates for cotton from the South to Northern distributing points are certainly an advantage, but it is no advantage to the South or the North that when it is to be transported under the same circumstances and conditions a discrimination should be exercised against certain shipping points and in favor of others at a longer distance from its destination. The charge for transporting by the bale between local points would be in no way affected. So, it is said, the development of the coal and iron interests of the South depends on low rates of transportation to or beyond the Ohio River. But the bill would certainly not interfere with such rates. They could be made as low as the railroads could afford or were willing to make them. Rates for iron or coal would not be affected by those for any other kind of property. Coal or iron sent by the trainload over through lines would not be affected by the rates of transportation of the same materials locally under different circumstances and conditions. The simple fact would be that the same line taking coal or iron by the car or by the train from one point could not charge more for the same service from another point at a greater distance from the common destination, or more from the same point to a nearer destination than to one more remote, the circumstances and conditions of the traffic being substantially similar. "In short, we do not see how this prohibition as to the short and long haul, fairly construed and judiciously applied, can injure either prohibited from charging any more than a reasonable and just amount for its services; by the second section the carrier is enjoined against unjustly discriminating against any of its patrons, by charging a greater or less compensation for similar services-in other words, its rates must be uniform, the same to all, without any discrimination; by the third section the carrier is prohibited from giving any undue or unreasonable preference to any individual, etc., or location, or particular description of traffic, or subjecting such individual, etc., locality, or particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage; and by the fourth section the carrier is prevented from charging a greater or as great a compensation for a shorter than for a longer haul. By the foregoing sections it will be perceived that Congress has not only limited or fixed the amount of compensation which a common car the interests of the railroads, or those of the producers and shippers, or those of the business centres and seaports of the country. The outcry raised against it seems to have been partly the result of ignorance or misunderstanding and partly the outcome of an objection of railroad managers to any regulation of the liberty which they have so often abused to the injury of the country and even to the properties which they control."] N may The Inter-State Commerce Act. 66 45 rea rier Pools and Division of Earnings Prohibited. Fourth: The fifth section of the Act deals with pools, and provides that it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate offence. It is not within the scope of this treatise to discuss the very important and difficult questions of the policy or public benefit growing out of railroad freight pools. Those |