FOOTNOTES:
[390] The literature on the subject is scanty. Much of the material has necessarily been gathered in the field by conference with traffic officials and others. My hearty thanks are due primarily to Paul P. Rainer, Esq., chief of the Joint Rate Inspection Bureau at Chicago, for his willingness to impart such explanation of this complicated matter as the delicate responsibilities of his important post permit. The map published herewith, while in part prepared from the actual percentage tables, with his permission and that of several important trunk line officials concerned, has been checked and corrected by his official copyright map of January 1, 1899. While the scheme of graphic representation is entirely different, the facts represented are the same. I am also especially indebted to H. C. Barlow, Esq., formerly president of the Terre Haute & Evansville Railroad and now director of the Chicago Commercial Association, and to J. W. Midgley, Esq., for many years one of the Trunk Line Commissioners, for assistance in many ways.
The principal references consulted are included in the following list:
1874. Windom Committee Report, officially known as Report of the Select Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard, 43d Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 307, vol. I, pp. 24-30; vol. II, pp. 7, 80, 283.
1879. Hepburn Committee Report, New York State, Special Committee on Railroads, 8 vols., pp. 3001-3006, 3102-3111.
1886. Cullom Committee Report, 49th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 46, vol. II, p. 101.
1887. Typewritten Record, Opinion, etc., of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Detroit Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk, etc., Railways. Also the Toledo case (1889) and that of Pratt Lumber Company (1905), I.C.C. Reports, vol. II, p. 315; vol. V, p. 166; and vol. X, p. 29.
1890. Senate Report on the Transportation Interests of the United States and Canada, 51st Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 847, pp. 497, 611-636.
1892. Cincinnati Freight Bureau case. Copy of Record before the Interstate Commerce Commission, etc., United States Circuit Court for Southern District of Ohio, In Equity No. 4748, vol. I, pp. 42-53. (Reprint.)
1900. Report of United States Industrial Commission, vol. IV, pp. 556-562.
1905. Elkins Committee, officially known as Hearings before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, 5 vols., vol. II, p. 1569, and vol. III, p. 2271.
1905. Record of Proceedings before the Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Commission in the Matter of Revision of the Schedule of Reasonable Maximum Rates, etc., Springfield, especially pp. 31 et seq. (Reprint.)
1876-1905. Proceedings and Circulars, Joint Executive Committee and Joint Rate Committee of the Trunk Line, etc., Associations.
[391] Fink, Adjustment of Railroad Transportation Rates, etc., p. 16.
[392] Ibid., pp. 19 and 52.
[393] Windom Committee Report, II, p. 7.
[394] Waste of transportation as an economic problem has already been discussed in chap. IX, supra.
[395] This persisted even in 1890. Consult 51st Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Rep., No. 847, p. 616.
[396] Hepburn Committee, pp. 3006-3010.
[397] Hepburn Committee Report, p. 318.
[398] Windom Committee Report, II, p. 287.
[399] This was adopted officially by the trunk lines April 13, 1876.
[400] Hepburn Committee Report, p. 3112.
[401] Record Proceedings Railroad Commission of Illinois in Revision of Maximum Freight Rates, 1905, pp. 32 and 88.
[402] 55th Cong. 1st ses., Sen. Doc. No. 39, p. 33. The Hepburn Committee (p. 3111) describes the local jealousies which prevailed.
[403] Chicago has never become reconciled to it, however, alleging that it injures her commercially. Compare Windom Committee, 1874, vol. i, p. 24; 51st Cong., 1st ses., Sen. Rep. No. 847, 1890, p. 611 et seq.; Elkins Committee, 1905, pp. 1433, 2538 et seq.; and Record Proceedings Illinois Railroad Commission on Revision of Maximum Rates, 1905. Cf. p. 378, infra. Seaport differentials are discussed in chap. XI, infra.
[404] Hepburn Committee, p. 3104.
[405] Distances are given in the Thurman-Washburne-Cooley Advisory Commission on Differentials, etc., of 1882.
[406] Hepburn Committee, pp. 3188, 3195. "Taking the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad, for example, running to Indianapolis, where they can connect with all the trunk lines.... Assume that company had only 100 cars of business per day; if the property went to Baltimore, that company would receive $800 per day more than if it came to New York, pro-rating the rates by mileage to both places; now $800 a day, there being 300 working days in the year, is a difference of $240,000 a year."
[407] The revised table of percentages is reprinted in full in Hepburn Committee Report, p. 3107 et seq.
[408] The official rule from Proceedings of the Joint Executive Committee, June 12 and 13, 1879, is as follows:
"First.—That from all points being less distant from New York than Chicago new percentages be adopted for making up rates on eastbound freight upon the following basis: the percentages from points of the same, or no greater distance than Chicago, to continue as heretofore.
"Second.—That six cents per 100 pounds be first deducted from an assumed rate of 25 cents per 100 pounds, Chicago to New York, said deduction to represent the fixed charges at both ends of long or short hauls.
"Third.—That, after such deduction, the rate per mile, which the remainder, or 19 cents per 100 pounds, produces from Chicago to New York, shall be charged per mile from all common points named in the first section, according to the percentages of distance shown by the table adopted at Chicago, April 30, 1876, to which result so computed the 6 cents per 100 pounds of fixed charges first above deducted shall be again added, and the percentage of the Chicago rate of 25 cents, produced by such additions, shall thereafter constitute the percentage of the Chicago rate, which shall be subsequently charged from the points named in first section.
For Illustration
| Chicago to New York, per 100 lbs. | 25c. |
| Less fixed charges, per 100 lbs. | 6 |
| Basis of rate for computation | 19 |
| Columbus, Ohio, as at present 70 per cent. of Chicago net rate, will be | 13.3c |
| To which add the fixed charges | 6 |
| And the new percentage from Columbus will hereafter be 77-2/10 per cent. of Chicago, in lieu of 70 per cent., as at present." | 19.3c |
[409] Hepburn Committee, p. 3104. A hypothetical instance will serve as illustration. Suppose a point with an 80 per cent. rate on the old schedule. When Chicago paid 25 cents, the rate to this point would be 20 cents. Under the new scheme the intermediate rate would be 80 per cent. of 19 cents, or 15.2 cents, plus 6 cents terminal charge, making a total of 21.2 cents. This is 84.8 per cent. of the Chicago rate instead of 80 per cent. as before. Compare table, p. 373, infra.
[410] Thus from Ironton, in the 87 per cent. zone south of Columbus, Ohio, the distance to Columbus is 127 miles, added to 638 miles from Columbus to New York makes a total of 765 miles. Multiplying this by 00.0206 makes it 87 per cent. of the Chicago rate.
[412] Cf. Industrial Commission, IV, p. 556.
[413] Record, Detroit Board of Trade case.
[415] Computed apparently by regular rules, but on the basis of only 4 cents terminal charges instead of the usual 6.
[416] Joint Rate Circular, No. 815.
[417] Demanding a 70 per cent. rate on a strict mileage basis, and also, because the pro-rating basis with Western lines is that figure.
[418] 23 I.C.C. Rep., 684, on wool from Detroit, for example. 13 Idem, 300 concerns Evansville rates and those across in Kentucky.
[419] Trunk Line Association Circular No. 523, issued July 26, 1883, gives tables of these percentages in each direction. Present westbound percentages are given in ibid., No. 751, issued April 3, 1899.
[420] Typewritten record, Detroit Board of Trade case, 1887-88, Interstate Commerce Commission Office, pp. 244-251.
[421] Under a committee headed by the late J. T. R. McKay, of Cleveland. The Official Classification and the 75 cent New York-Chicago rate first-class were then adopted for good.
[422] 12 I.C.C. Rep., 186, on points about New York, for example.
[423] I am told that rivers intervening, to cut off cartage by wagon to competing lines, have sometimes effectively influenced the charges.
[424] The long and short haul principle has always been given great weight here. All exceptions to it were removed in good faith by the carriers when the Act of 1887 was passed. Cf. Windom Committee, vol. I, p. 26; vol. III, pp. 42, 134, and 283.
[425] G. C. Pratt Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Ind. & Louisville Railway Co., decided January 27, 1904.
[426] U. S. Industrial Commission, vol. IV, p. 562.
[427] Cf. 8 Int. Com. Rep., 169, on grain rates from Minnesota and trans-Missouri points; as also 23 I.C.C. Rep., 195.
[428] Cf. Joint Committee Information No. 298 of January 13, 1900, giving all these rules in detail.
[429] Cf. Windom Committee, vol. II, pp. 42 and 134.
[430] Known as the C. F. A. scale. Full text is printed in Illinois Railroad Commission Proceedings in Maximum Freight Rate case, Record, etc., 1905, p. 43. See also p. 97.
[431] Detailed comparison is made in ibid., p. 45. See also p. 17.
[432] Illinois Railroad Commission Proceedings in Maximum Freight Rate case, Record, etc., 1905, p. 152.
[433] Exhibit A 15, ibid., shows this by means of a map. See also Senate (Elkins) Committee, 1905, vol. III, p. 2271.
[434] The double disability of these smaller places is stated in ibid., p. 7.
[435] Chapter XVIII, infra.