from lack of equipment, regardless of their original supply. Their cars, which are loaded and destined to the Atlantic ports, are often used for local business there or are loaded and sent back to some point, say in Trunk Line or Central Freight Association territory, and unloaded only to be reloaded and sent again to the Atlantic coast. In 1906, James J. Hill sent a representative of the Great Northern Railroad to the East to discover where Great Northern equipment was being detained. The representative found that their equipment was being used to haul ice from Maine to Boston and that these cars had "been in that service for months and months." Thus, through the disregard of car service rules, the cars of railway systems west of the Mississippi River shuttle back and forth throughout the eastern portion of the United States. Coal mines as well as producing areas belong to the unfortunate group of one-way shippers. Consequently railroads which serve coal mines often find it difficult to secure the return of coal cars that go beyond their own lines. A typical case of this sort came before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1910. The superintendent of transportation of the Illinois Central Railroad had attempted to secure an agreement from a number of connecting roads that they would observe car service rules and return coal equipment promptly. The reply of the Missouri Pacific is typical. 1 Testimony of Hill, before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Minneapolis Hearings, p. 300. Little wonder that Hill should say: "The car thief is the worst kind of a thief. Thieves are all bad but I think the car thief is the worst." Ibid., loc. cit. See also discussion upon the adoption of the per diem method of payment before the American Railway Association in Proceedings, American Railway Association, vol. iii. p. 565. A little road in Iowa about 100 miles long said to have the largest amount of cars per mile of any railroad in the United States has had much trouble in keeping equipment adequate to their needs because they ship out clay and gypsum products that go to distant points, and the number of cars that come over their system under load does not correspond with the number they ship out, hence in a time like the last two years they have much trouble from car shortage. (See a statement of E. D. Chassel of the Railroad Commission of the state of Iowa, Hearings before House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 64th Congress, 2nd Session, on H. R. 19546, etc., p. 58.) ། 1 That railroad indicated that it would be glad to observe the car service rules, unless they were disregarded by other lines. In that event it would be compelled to confiscate whatever cars it found upon its lines. The Illinois Central finally issued an order to the effect that none of its cars could be loaded with coal destined for points beyond its own lines. Whereupon the Missouri and Illinois Coal Company, which was thereby prevented from marketing coal on its contracts in St. Louis, appealed to the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief. Reversing the earlier decision 1 it was held that the action of the Illinois Central was illegal; but the Commission made no order in the case, indicating that it was the first duty of the carriers to work out equitable car service rules among themselves. Clearly the refusal of railroads to observe their car service rules has meant inequity in car distribution not only among different shippers and different sections of the country but also among the railroads themselves. Such practice on the part of the carriers gives little incentive to any individual line to increase its car supply. Railways are, however, not altogether responsible through non-observance of car service rules for the fact that railway equipment becomes congested in some sections and lacking in others. Both shippers and regulating bodies share this responsibility. The responsibility of shippers for the inability of carriers to render adequate service is greater than has commonly been recognized. Among the practices of shippers which contribute to the inadequacy of transportation facilities may be mentioned the detention of equipment longer than is necessary to unload it, the use of cars for storage purposes, the abuse of the reconsignment privilege and finally by continuing trade customs 1 See p. 150, note 1, supra. 222 I. C. C. R. 39 (41). that should have changed pari passu with enlarged capacity of railway equipment. These practices have meant an inefficient use of equipment. Bad habits of American shippers have been developed to a great extent by competition between carriers. For some years American railroads were built out into territory where nobody lived, and from that point on out to where nobody cared to go.1 Because of the excess of transportation facilities it was natural that competition between carriers should have brought about very liberal use of railway equipment by shippers. Some railroads had ample warehouse or storage room which they gave free to shippers in order to get their business. Others that did not have storage room offered their cars or as was often the case the cars of other railroads." As late as 1887 when the board of directors of the New York and New England Railroad reluctantly permitted the vice-president and general manager of that road to levy a demurrage charge on shippers for detention of equipment, the competing lines with the exception of the Boston and Albany began soliciting New England patrons with promises of unlimited car storage. Altho earlier attempts than that of the New York and New England Railroad were made to levy a demurrage charge for detention of equipment by shippers they do not appear to have been taken seriously, especially so far as it affected big shippers or competitive points." In fact any one railroad found it very difficult to insist upon payment of demurrage without a loss of business, 4 6 1 See an article by Charles Francis Adams, North American Review, April, 1875. ? Chicago Hearings, p. 337; see St. Louis Hearings, p. 140; Proceedings National Association Railway Commissioners, 1909, p. 214, and 1914, pp. 41-42. Railway Age, February 8, 1907, p. 171. Ibid., loc. cit.; also Railroad Age Gazette, October 30, 1908, pp. 1234-1236. 18 I. C. C. R. 38; 25 I. C. C. R. 216. Proceedings American Railway Association, vol. i, p. 173. and car service associations were finally formed to collect for all railroads. Even then shippers resisted payment of these charges and carried their cases to the Interstate Commerce Commission but without success.2 The extent to which shippers use railway equipment for storage purposes is difficult to measure. Reporting upon evidence presented in the investigation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1906, Commissioner Harlan pointed out that both railroad men and shippers admitted that cars were constantly used by shippers as warehouses, and that the time allowed to them for loading and unloading was in excess of real necessity. Naturally through liberal treatment of shippers on the part of railways in the use of railway equipment, habits were developed of relying upon the railway to furnish much of the "business plant." The very rapid development of our commercial centers has contributed not a little to the insistent demand on the part of the shipping public for a continuation of early privileges in the use of the railway equipment in connection with their business. Inasmuch as land has ad1 List of demurrage bureaus, see Bull. 191, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, March, 1915, p. 24. 11 I. C. C. R. 166; see also 18 I. C. C. R. 234. 12 I. C. C. R. 579. Commissioner Lane said that the contention that car shortage had been caused by the use of cars as warehouses was without support so far as the testimony given at Minneapolis and Chicago indicated. He maintained that the demurrage accounts of the railroads showed that to a very limited extent did " consignees avail themselves of the right to hold cars as warehouses and pay demurrage thereon." 12 I. C. C. R. 571. While this might be true as applies to agricultural areas to apply it generally would appear to overlook the fact that even in more recent years demurrage accounts might not be a true measure of the extent to which shippers were holding cars. J. A. Shinn writing in the Railway Age (February 8, 1907, pp. 171–172) maintained that in 1893 it was notorious that many big firms owed tens of thousands of dollars which was not paid and which no attempt was made to collect. Even as late as 1909, the Committee on Car Service and Demurrage of the National Association of Railway Commissioners reported that the collection of demurrage from large industries was still somewhat of an anomaly; that in some sections of the country the railroads were carrying on their books uncollected demurrage of hundreds of thousands of dollars; that the failure to enforce demurrage rules had been "particularly notorious." Proceedings National Association Railway Commissioners, 1909, pp. 221, 240. If these statements are to be relied upon it is fair to assume that an important portion of demurrage was never even placed upon the books. See also American Railway Association (Bulletin) February 6 and May 9, 1917. vanced in value very rapidly in our cities, it has been cheaper to rely upon the carriers for adequate storage and track space than to provide it otherwise.1 The charge for the use of railway equipment has not advanced in the same ratio that the value of real estate has risen; indeed the charge for detention of railway equipment had remained almost stationary until recently advanced by the Director General of Railroads. Even those business concerns, which a generation ago had sufficient storage or track space, have found it economical to use this space for enlarging their capacity, leaving the burden of their enlarged capacity upon the carriers. This applies to the shipping in of large orders of raw materials bought under favorable market conditions as well as to the daily output of a concern. In a case in the former class which came before the Interstate Commerce Commission as late as 1912, the shipper resisted the payment of demurrage, but the Interstate Commerce Commission very properly held that the demurrage should be paid. When the railroads applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission a little over a year ago for permission to reduce free time on domestic freight held in New Jersey for final delivery to New York, Brooklyn and elsewhere, and for permission to increase the charge for storage for both export and domestic delivery at New York harbor points, neither measure was for the purpose of increasing revenue but to relieve freight congestion.* In the case of some concerns which have adequate storage, their facilities for unloading may be so primitive as to occasion much delay to railway equipment. 1 See 14 I. C. C. R. 170; 16 I. C. C. R. 116; Proceedings National Association Railway Commissioners, 1913, pp. 367–368. See Chicago Hearings, p. 358. 25 I. C. C. R. 399. Newlands Hearings, p. 900. |