Considering the above items as the minimum expense attending the transportation of any package, however small, the Commissioners admit the justice and equity of establishing a minimum charge for such small packages. They are not prepared to say that a minimum charge of 25 cents for a single package for distances less than 100 miles, and of 50 cents for more than 100 miles, would be an exorbitant rate. Since the amount you paid was less than that sum, they do not find that you were overcharged for carrying the package in question. By order of the Board. J. S. CAMERON, Secretary. JOHN T. HANCOCK & SON VS. THE BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN R'Y Co., FILED NOVEMBER 22, 1879. DUBUQUE, November 22, 1879. M. C. WOODRUFF, Railroad Commissioner of Iowa: DEAR SIR-Enclosed please find a list of articles which the B., C. R. & N. R. R. classify higher than the Union Classification used by all the trunk lines in Iowa. We understand sirup to be billed from Chicago to points on the B., C. R. & N. R'y as fourth-class, while if we ship it as fourth to Cedar Falls it then becomes second on B., C. R. & N. R'y. If you can do anything to secure the adoption of the Union Classification, please kindly do so, and much oblige J. T. HANCOCK & SON. [With this list was a copy of the Union Classification of freights, as adopted by all railroads west of Chicago.] Comparative statement of freight rates between Chicago or Milwaukee and Dubuque on the Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad west of Charles City. FROM 1 1 2 3 4 20.70 18.40 12.10 6.85 DES MOINES, December 4, 1879. C. J. IVES, Esq., General Superintendent B., C. R. & N. R'y: DEAR SIR-This office is in receipt of the following communication; viz. [Here was inserted a copy of complaint, also table of articles referred to above.] The Commissioners instruct me to ask if your classification of May 15, 1879, is still in use, and whether you have in view a probable change to the "Union Classification," meaning that of the main east. and west Iowa lines. J. S. CAMERON, Secretary. BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN R'Y, J. S. CAMERON, Esq., Secretary Board Railway Commissioners, Des DEAR SIR-I have yours of December 4, and in reply to the complaint of Messrs. Hancock & Sons would say, that on April 9 I enclosed to the Hon. Board of Railway Commissioners proof sheets of tariff and revised classification, asking that they be examined and, if approved, we would then publish. The letter accompanying them shows the ground we took in making the change of classification, which, practically, did advance the rates on some articles, but our reasons for so doing, as set forth in that letter, I think still hold good, and while we do no injustice to people on our own line, we help to maintain the trade of towns in which we are interested as wholesale points on our road, as against rival towns on other lines in which we can have no interest. I trust the explanation given at that time, and this, will be sufficient answer to the complaint of Messrs. Hancock & Son. C. J. IVES, General Superintendent. DES MOINES, December 26, 1879. C. J. IVES, Esq., General Superintendent B., C. R. & N. R'y: DEAR SIR-Referring again to the complaint of John T. Hancock & Sons of Dubuque, and your answer thereto, the Commissioners instruct me to ask if you carry freight received at any points on your road, or from points on lines where you have joint tariffs on the so called Union Classification, while freight from other points is billed under your own classification, which in some cases is higher. J. S. CAMERON, Secretary. CEDAR RAPIDS, December 27, 1879. J. S. CAMERON, Esq., Secretary of Board of Railway Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Replying to yours of Dec. 26, regarding complaint of Messrs. Hancock & Son, of Dubuque, I would say: We are using "Union Classification," so called, only on inter-state business from Milwaukee, Racine, Chicago, St. Louis and Peoria. We use our classification (proofs of which were sent you April 9) on all local business received from other lines at our junction points. To our wholesale men at Burlington, Muscatine and Cedar Rapids we give in some instances a lower classification than in our published classification. Our reasons for so doing are set forth in my letter of April 9, as also in mine of Dec 8. We deem it but justice to the wholesale towns on our line that have contributed to the building of the road, and are virtually interested in it, as we are in them, that they should be protected as against competitive points on other roads, and between which there can be no community of interest. In raising the classification on goods shipped by Messrs. Hancock & Son, we did not thereby increase the cost to the customer located on our line, but that enabled our merchants to sell him the goods at as reasonable figures as the Dubuque dealers could sell for. This we had in view in making up the classification, the proof of which we submitted to you before publishing, and we have acted under it since. Trusting this explanation will be satisfactory, and that we have taken these steps with care and with the consent of the Honorable Commissioners, I remain C. J. IVES, General Superintendent. DES MOINES, December 29, 1879. C. J. IVES, Esq., General Superintendent B., C. R. & N. R'y, Cedar Rapids, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Your favor of the 27th, in reply to our letter of the 26th inst., regarding the complaint of Messrs. Hancock & Son, of Dubuque, has been received, and its contents carefully noted and considered. From your communication we find that your company uses the "Union Classification" on inter-state commerce, and that on all local business from other lines at your junction points it uses its own classification submitted to us for approval in your letter of April 9, 1879, and that to wholesale merchants at Burlington, Muscatine and Cedar Rapids, it gives in some instances a lower classification than in your printed classification. Your reason for this course is stated to be found in your letter of December 8. From a consideration of this letter we find you deem it your duty or privilege to protect, as between towns in this State, persons doing wholesale business in towns on your line from persons doing wholesale business in towns off your line which are competitive points, and you feel that you are but doing justice because they (the wholesale towns on your line) have contributed to the building of your road and are virtually interested in it, as you are in them. After due consideration we are altogether unable either to assent to the proposition you make or the reasons for it. We are unable to believe that the several towns in this State need protection one from the other; and even if this be not true, it is we think unsafe to leave the right of determining the necessity to a railroad company, whose duties to the public seem to be that of a public carrier of goods and passengers alone. We cannot, therefore, concede your right to determine the necessity of protection as above set forth. We think it would be unwise and dangerous. If any such necessity ever exists, which we do not now discuss, the General Assembly of the State alone should, in our judgment, determine the fact and devise the remedy. It does not seem to us that the fact that towns which are on your line have contributed to building your road is a reason for granting them protection from other towns in the State which are natural competitors. While individuals and corporations, municipal and otherwise, may and do contribute to building railways, when built they are for the whole public, and it is unsafe to conclude that the public good is advanced by protection of the donating individuals or corporations. 66 You state that "in raising the classification on goods shipped by "Messrs. Hancock & Son, we did not thereby increase the cost to the customer located on our line, but that enabled our merchants to sell "him the goods at as reasonable figures as the Dubuque dealers could "sell for." By doing this, while it may be, as you state, that the customer receives his goods at as reasonable figures as the Dubuque dealer could sell for, a proposition that we are unable to determine, yet it seems evident that your raising the classification on goods shipped by Messrs. Hancock & Son effectually shuts off the customers from dealing with those gentlemen, and we cannot think this desirable or right. Referring to your hope "that the explanation will be satisfactory," and "that we have taken these steps with care and with the consent "of the Honorable Commissioners," we cannot believe that the fact that on the 19th of April last, referring to and considering your classification, our Secretary wrote that "in regard to the changes in the classi"fication submitted in order to obtain uniformity with the roads with "which you must have large exchanges of freight, they are also willing "to concede the reasonable convenience to be obtained by such uni"formity in classification, and they do not now see reason to criticise "the list of classification proposed," can be construed as an approval of the case as presented by Messrs. Hancock & Son, which is a departure from your own classification. Section 11 of the act establishing the Board of Railroad Commissioners declares as the rule of action for all railways in this State. "that all concessions of rates, drawbacks and contracts for special "rates, shall be open to and allowed all persons and corporations and "companies alike, at the same rate per ton per mile per car load, upon "like conditions and under similar circumstances, unless by reason of "the extra cost of transportation per car load from a different point "the same would be unreasonable and inequitable." With our view of the case in question, we do not think it would be unreasonable and inequitable to furnish Messrs. Hancock & Son the same facilities for traffic on your line that others have. In fact we believe it your duty so to do, and as required by law we respectfully recommend this course to your company. Please advise us of your action in the matter. J. S. CAMERON, Secretary. By the Commissioners. |