Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States…

In contradiction to this we have the undenied statement of counsel at argument, quoting statistics of the Chicago Board of Trade, that much corn traffic has been diverted from barge to rail since the rate went into effect, so that the barge lines carried 53% less corn to Chicago in 1963 than they did in 1957. The finding that the through rate was compensatory does not answer the question of whether the direct effect of the below-cost proportional rate on the Belt Line traffic is wholly at odds with the National Transportation Policy.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States…

Furthermore, the application of all of the Act's prohibitions against discrimination 'as a whole' furthers the purpose of the Congress in its enactment. The Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce once stated it this way:
'The provisions of the * * * (Interstate Commerce Act) are based upon the theory that the paramount evil chargeable against the operation of the transportation system of the United States as now conducted is unjust discrimination between persons, places, commodities, or particular descriptions of traffic.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States…

The New York Central operates the Kankakee Belt Line, which extends from South Bend, Indiana, through Kankakee, Illinois, and westward to Zearing, Illinois. That portion of the line west of Kankakee to Moronts, Illinois, roughly parallels the Illinois River in Northern Illinois and is used, in large part, to transport corn toward eastern markets. In the mid-1930's, the Illinois River was developed for barge movement and almost all of the corn traffic was drawn away from the rails to the river, corn being moved to Chicago by barge and then shipped to the East by rail.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature