FREIGHT DISCRIMINATION.
We come now to a kind of discrimination that enables a railway manager
to determine which of the merchants, manufacturers, mine owners, etc.,
on his line shall prosper and which shall not; what cities and towns
shall grow, what States shall thrive, what industries shall be
developed.
The purpose of discrimination may be (1) to keep business from going to
a competing line; (2) to increase revenue by creating new business for
which, if necessary, rates may be dropped very low, as anything above
the cost of handling on new business will add to income; (3) to simplify
and solidify traffic; (4) to favor persons who, through political
influence or other power may aid or injure the road, or who, through
friendship, marriage, business or civic relation, or otherwise, have a
“pull” with the management; (5) to advance the interests or enhance the
value of a business, or property, or place, in which the railway or its
officers or their friends are interested; or (6) to kill or injure a
place or person or business that has incurred the enmity of the railways
or their allies.
As a result of the play of these motives our railroad history is full of
unfair discriminations between persons, places, and industries in the
United States, and between domestic and foreign trade. The methods and
forms are many and have grown more numerous with each succeeding epoch,
but the predominant forms vary in the different strata. We still have
plenty of living specimens of the species that prevailed in earlier
periods, but the leading forms now are comparatively recent evolutions.
The history of discriminations would fill many volumes. The Hepburn
Committee (1879) appointed by the New York Legislature collected about
5000 cases of discrimination. It was shown to be a common thing for
railroads to give favored shippers discounts of 50, 60, 70, and even 80
percent from the regular rates. The special contracts involving favors
in force for one year on a single railroad, the New York Central, were
estimated at 6000. The United States Senate Committee of 1885, the
Congressional Committee of 1888, the Interstate Commerce Commission,
1887–1905, the United States Industrial Commission, 1900–1902, the
Wisconsin investigation in the fall of 1903, the United States Senate
Committee of 1905, the State railroad commissions, the courts, and other
investigating bodies have brought to light additional thousands of
discriminations. We shall select some examples illustrating various
methods of discrimination.