Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad Company — Opinion of the Court
Author: Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Interstate Commerce Commission v…

Summary

“Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad Company — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as rate, lumber and carriers.

Quotes from Interstate Commerce Commission v… (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ In the first place there was no appeal from the master's finding that:
'The carriers concede that they are unable to determine the cost of this traffic, in and of itself; and that they are unable to say, with any satisfactory accuracy, whether or not they make a profit upon it; but they have all conceded that, in their judgment, speaking as experts, the lumber traffic has not been confiscatory, and has not been performed for less than cost.' This concession, of course, does not cover the question at issue, but it does fix a starting point. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ It establishes an important fact in dealing with the difficult question of determining what is a reasonable rate on a particular article. Where the rates as a whole are under consideration, there is a possibility of deciding, with more or less certainty, whether the total earnings afford a reasonable return. But whether the carrier earned dividends or not sheds little light on the question as to whether the rate on a particular article is reasonable. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ If the old rates were too low to be just and reasonable, complainants [mill men] cannot urge their loss as a ground for maintaining them; if the old rates were just and reasonable, the defendants cannot justify the advance on the ground of the prosperity of the lumber business.'
Considering the case as a whole, we cannot say that the order was made because of the effect of the advance on the lumber industry; nor because of a mistake of law as to presumption arising from the long continuance of the low rate, when the carrier was earning dividends ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ Too many elements are involved in fixing a rate on a particular article, over a particular road, to warrant reliance on such method of proof. The matter has to be determined by a consideration of many facts.
In this case the Commission had before it many witnesses and volumes of reports, statistics, and estimates, including the rates on lumber charged by other roads, and those charged by these carriers on other classes of freight. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ There was evidence that during the fourteen years when the forty-cent rate was in force, the carriers had, by proper management and without wasteful economies, kept their properties in a high state of efficiency, and after paying all the costs of operation, maintenance, depreciation, fixed charges, and sinking funds, had been able to pay reasonable dividends. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ The reasonableness of rates cannot be proved by categorical answers, like those given, where a witness may, in terms, testify that the goods were worth so much per pound, or the services worth so much a day. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ There was evidence as to the value of the road, the amounts expended in betterments and paid out in dividends, ratio between the increased earnings and increased expenses, with many tables and estimates tending to show the cost of hauling empty cars, fully loaded cars, and those carrying an average load. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Interstate Commerce Commission v…

“ For example, the rate to Omaha, on the lower part of this line, was 50 cents, while the rate to points on the northern end was 40 cents. This was a difference of 20 per cent in favor of Omaha, although there was no such difference in the distance. Again, timber shipped from the coast to St. Paul passed through this 40-cent point on the northern end of the Pembina line. The distance from the coast to St. Paul was one-eighth greater, and the advance allowed was one eighth, or 5 cents, over the 40-cent rate.
It is quite true that the carriers may do what they could not be compelled to do. ”

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Interstate Commerce Commission v… (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature