RAILWAY COMPANY; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS; MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; OREGON RAILROAD & NAVIGATION COMPANY; OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY; PARIS & GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; QUINCY, OMAHA & KANSAS CITY RAILROAD COMPANY; ST. JOSEPH & GRAND ISLAND RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS & HANNIBAL RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY; ST. LOUIS, SAN FRANCISCO & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS, ROCKY MOUNTAIN & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS; SAN ANTONIO & ARANSAS PASS RAILWAY COMPANY; SAN PEDRO, LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY; SANTA FE CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY; SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY; TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; UNITED VERDE & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY, AND WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY. Submitted March 30, 1908. Decided April 6, 1908. The inclusion by carriers operating under the Western Classification of multigraphs, in cases in less than carloads, in double first class is unreasonable. Defendants ordered to classify such multigraphs as 14 times first class. H. H. Henry for complainant. T. J. Norton for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. PROUTY, Commissioner: The competency of the Forest City Freight Bureau to maintain this complaint has been affirmed by us in a previous decision, and the defendants make no question in that respect here. The complaint is directed against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company and many other carriers operating under the Western Classification, for the purpose of obtaining a lower rating upon the multigraph. This article is now classified with the mimeograph and neostyle, as double first class; the complainant insists that it should be classified with printing presses, as second class. The multigraph is in reality a miniature printing press which prints, unlike most small presses, from a cylinder and not from a bed. The type can be set upon this cylinder by a special device for that purpose, or an electrotype plate can be fastened upon it, after which, by revolving the cylinder, the paper is fed in and ink transferred to the type and paper from a series of gelatine rolls. It will print a sheet 8 inches wide and 17 inches long. It is ordinarily operated by hand, but there is no objection to the application of any form of motive power, and in some few instances it is now being run by electric motor. The multigraph seems to be adapted to use in connection with any business where it is desirable to strike off a comparatively small number of cards, circular letters, or other matter of this character. It is used in some cases for the printing of railroad tariffs, and this Commission under its rule that all tariffs must be printed receives those produced upon this machine. It is simple in construction, easily operated, and seems to fill a want in many business establishments and other offices. It is a patented device, selling to the customer for $250, to the dealer from the manufacturer for $150. Our understanding of the testimony is that the manufacturer delivers the machine at the lastnamed price. It was stated that up to the present time the cost of constructing it had been about $75, but when the manufacture is conducted upon a large scale in the most economical way the cost of production must be very much less than this. The outside measurements of the shipping package contain about 34 cubic feet and the weight is 100 pounds. When properly packed it is not liable to damage. The manager of the company which makes and puts them upon the market testified that in the last year the company had shipped 1,760 without any complaint of loss or damage in transit. The complainant insists that this ought to be classified as a printing press, but such is not our conclusion. While the work done by it. might in all cases be done by a printing press, its use is in no sense that of the ordinary printing press; nor is the relation between the weight and value anything like that in case of a printing press. It is more in the nature of an office appliance like the typewriter, the cash register, and the adding machine. These are all classified under the Western Classification as 1 times first class, and we think this machine should be given the same classification. In our opinion the rate now exacted by the defendants for the transportation of the multigraph is excessive and should not for the future exceed 1 times that rate which is applied by the defendants under the Western Classification to the transportation of articles classified as first class. It will be understood that this decision only applies to those cases where the Western Classification would gover a, An order will issue accordingly. No. 1298. AL. G. FIELD v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY; ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY; NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY; ATLANTA & WEST POINT RAILROAD COMPANY, AND WESTERN RAILWAY OF ALABAMA. Decided April 6, 1908. The Commission has no authority under the act to regulate commerce to require carriers to establish special fares, based upon less than the normal passenger mile revenue, for the use of passengers on particular occasions or for special purposes. On that ground, and also on the ground that the legal right of carriers to issue party-rate tickets and confine their use to theatrical companies has been fully considered by the Commission, this complaint for an order requiring the defendants to reestablish such party rates is dismissed on motion of the Commission. Robert M. Dittey and James A. Allen for complainant. pany. Ed. Baxter for Seaboard Air Line Railway; Illinois Central Railroad Company; Central of Georgia Railway Company; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company; Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company, and Western Railway of Alabama. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. HARLAN, Commissioner: The prayer of this petition is that the Commission shall enter an order requiring the defendants to reestablish the special party rates which in past years have generally been accorded by carriers to theatrical companies and other special organizations engaged in giving public exhibitions. It is clear that the Commission has no authority to enter such an order. While the act to regulate commerce as amended confers upon the Commission the power to reduce a passenger fare alleged to be excessive, when a complaint to that effect has been filed and the issue thus made has been supported by competent testimony, it has vested in the Commission no affirmative power to require carriers to establish special fares, based upon less than the normal passenger-mile revenue, for the use of passengers on particular occasions or for special purposes. This was so held in Cator v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 113, and in Sprigg v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 443, and the question is not to be regarded therefore as open to further discussion. On that ground alone this petition should be dismissed. The real purpose, however, of the complainant in filing it was to bring to our attention again the question of the legal right of carriers, when they may desire to do so, to issue party rate tickets and to confine their use to theatrical companies and similar organizations that travel through the country for the purpose of giving exhibitions in public. That question also has been extensively argued before the Commission and has had careful consideration. In In the Matter of Party Rate Tickets, 12 I. C. C. Rep., 95, the Commission held that such party rates can not lawfully be limited to particular classes of persons, but must be open to the general public. Under these circumstances no useful purpose can be served by having the question of the legality of such rates, when so limited to theatrical and other amusement companies, again submitted for formal hearing. An order to the same effect in this case would not afford the complainant an opportunity to secure a review of the matter in the courts, for under the act to regulate commerce complainants have no recourse to the courts in order to test the soundness of the rulings of the Commission. An appeal for that purpose is open under this legislation only to the defendant carriers. For these reasons the proceeding is therefore dismissed on motion of the Commission. Should the Commission desire to give further consideration to the general question, it will adopt another course for doing so and in that connection will examine the carefully prepared brief filed herein by counsel for complainant. Should the Commission desire to have its conclusions on the question tested in the courts, it will so arrange in some effective way. An order will be entered in accordance herewith. 13 I. C. C. Rep No. 846. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY v. LOUISVILLE & & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY; LOUISVILLE, HENDERSON & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY; ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY; BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY; ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY; NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY; DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY; NEW YORK, ONTARIO & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY; NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY; THE TRUNK LINE ASSOCIATION, AND THE CENTRAL FREIGHT ASSOCIATION. Submitted May 28, 1907. Decided April 6, 1908. 1. Complaint questions reasonableness of rates between Owensboro and Henderson, Ky., and points in Trunk Line and Central Freight Association territories; it also alleges that such rates result in unjust discrimination against Owensboro and Henderson and give undue preference to Evansville, Ind. The carriers most directly interested in the Evansville rates for the most part serve the territory north of the Ohio River, while those most directly interested in the rates to Owensboro and Henderson serve the territory south of the river. There is greater density of population and of traffic in the territory north of the Ohio River known as Central Freight Association territory, in which Evansville is situated, than in territory south of the river, in which Owensboro and Henderson are situated. The general adjustment of rates throughout Central Freight Association territory due to the conditions therein prevailing naturally has a forceful effect upon the Evansville rates. The larger volume of traffic and greater number of carriers operating in that territory create a greater degree of competition, and the rates generally have been adjusted with a view to meeting the conditions resulting therefrom. |
