Railroads: Rates and Regulations

CHAPTER VII
LOCAL DISCRIMINATION

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,—

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]

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:

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.