| |
Decided May 14, 1912.
Following the original report herein, ante, page 277, the remaining tap lines shown of record are considered and conclusions announced. Comments are also made respecting certain irregularities and defects in practices and tariffs.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. BY THE COMMISSION. In the original report herein (ante, page 277), after stating the history of the several tap lines there mentioned and setting forth the salient features in connection with their ownership, physical condition, general character, source of traffic and revenue, and the manner in which their operations for the proprietary company are conducted, we found that in none of the cases there disposed of did the tap line perform a service of transportation either in the movement of the products of the mill of the proprietary company or in the movement of its logs from the forest to its mill. We held that the service in each case, so far as the logs and lumber of the proprietary company are concerned, was a plant service. It was also said at the close of the report that in a supplemental opinion, to be announced in the near future, we would state the facts in relation to all the other tap lines whose affairs are disclosed in the record before us, pointing out from among them such as in the judgment of the Commission bear a different relation to their respective proprietary lumber companies; and that in connection with the supplemental report we would enter such order with respect to all the tap lines before us as the conclusions announced might require.
Many of the tap lines described in this report differ only in de-tail from the lines described in the original report and consequently are controlled by the same principles. At the conclusion of the statement in each case we have noted a finding to which effect will be given in the order to be entered. It seems well, however, before describing the remaining tap lines of record, to call attention to a practice that finds frequent illustration in the pages that follow.
In a number of cases the tap line without charge hauls the logs of the lumber company that owns it. In other cases the lumber company itself hauls its logs over the tap-line rails to its mill. In some instances its right to do this is evidenced by a formal trackage contract; in other instances it is done under a verbal understanding. In some cases no charge is entered up by the tap line against the lumber company for this use of its tracks, and in a few cases the lumber company pays a small compensation. In several instances the trunk lines themselves have given trackage rights for a small toll to lumber companies. We have not understood that special privileges of this kind may lawfully be granted to a shipper. It is not uncommon for one railroad to give the use of its rails to another railroad under a trackage agreement, but we see no way in which a shipper may enjoy such a privilege over the rails of a common carrier, particularly when the compensation for the privilege is not published and the privilege is not open equally to other shippers. Except in one or two cases where the tap line crosses the state boundary line such arrangements are possibly to be regarded as purely local and therefore beyond our control. But they are inherently unlawful, and afford strong evidence that a tap line whose rails are used in that manner by its proprietary lumber company is a mere plant facility. On the other hand, such an arrangement with a shipper, even though it be purely local and therefore beyond our control, may nevertheless operate as a rebate and be punishable as such under this law when it appears that the concession is made in order to secure the interstate traffic of the shipper. All such arrangements are wrongful and we shall expect them to be discontinued. It may be well again to say that in the disposition made of these cases we have had in mind the special conditions that exist in this territory and have taken such action as under all the circumstances developed seemed necessary in the prevention of unlawful discriminations and preferences. Doubtless the same or generally similar conditions exist in other extensive lumber-producing districts and may be duplicated elsewhere in connection with different classes of traffic. But it is obvious that matters of this nature can not be dealt with in a wholesale manner, but must be considered separately and in the light of the surrounding conditions and special facts. It will, therefore, be fully understood that all that is here said is intended to relate specifically to the conditions found to exist in this territory. |
|
