Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/602

 DEPENDENT SERVICES OF COMMON CARRIERS IV Ji These are not dead issues that are being •discussed, for the doctrine of the Express Cases continually hampers the common law in dealing with real oppression in connec tion with transportation. Within the year public opinion has been much aroused against the exclusive arrangements entered into between the railways and the refrig erator car companies. Finally the Interstate Commerce Commission, upon complaints made by various shippers and consignees, instituted an investigation into the matter, the results of which are reported under the heading, Re Transportation of Fruit (10 Int. Com. Rep. 360). It was shown that the respondent railroad companies, the Pere Marquette and the Michigan Central, had entered into contracts with the other re spondent, the Armour Car Lines, to furnish the refrigerator car service for the trans portation of fruit over their lines, that un der these contracts the use of any other car service was prohibited, and that the icing during transportation was to be ex clusively performed by the car company. Further, it was proved that following after the making of this arrangement the cost of refrigerator car transportation increased from fifty to one hundred and fifty per cent. The conclusions of the commission may be seen by a few extracts from the opinion of Mf. Commissioner Prouty: "We think it is the duty of the respondent railroad com pany to furnish refrigerator cars for the transportation of this fruit. The defendant railways may provide such cars either by purchase on their own account or by lease from other roads, and if the latter plan is adopted they may undoubtedly enter into exclusive contracts like that before us. This has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. (The Express Cases, ii 7 U. S. i). Whether the carrier is legally compellable to furnish ice for the refrigera tion of such cars is more doubtful. In our opinion it should be. Granting, however, that there is no liability resting upon the

573

common carrier to provide refrigeration, this must be clear, that the railway must either furnish ice itself for a reasonable price or permit the shipper to do so. We have seen in this case that the refrigeration charges imposed by the Armour Car Lines Company are unreasonably high. By mak ing these exclusive contracts the defendant railways in effect impose upon the shippers of such fruit, exorbitant charges for the transportation of their product to market, and we think they thereby violate the first section of the interstate commerce." It is pretty generally agreed that what ought to be done in dealing with the private car lines is to apply to the whole situation the coercive law that regulates public call ing. Either the railways ought to be obliged to conduct the refrigerator service themselves, furnishing their own cars, or if they decide upon a different policy they should be obliged to haul the cars of as many refrigerator lines as chose to under take the business. But the conservative doctrines held by the Supreme Court of the United States stand in the way of the im mediate application to interstate commerce of any such progressive views as these. It does not seem that the ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission is reliev ing the situation much; for if the favored car line is allowed to retain its monopoly it is hopeless to expect the refrigeration charge to be brought down to the cost of service. Even after it has been established, as it soon will be, that the refrigerator-cars and the tank-cars are as much employed in the public service as the parlor-cars and the sleeping-cars, the problem will remain so long as the principle of the Express Cases is law. Therefore, it must be reluctantly recognized that this rather exigent problem must await the slow processes of compro mise legislation. In the meantime, in the absence of effi cient regulation by thorough-going law, those private car lines that have exclusive agreements with the railways are showing