Railroad Freight Rates

October 4, 1944

Report Outline
Regional Demands for Adjustment of Rate
Complexities of Railroad Rate Structure
Justice Department Vs. Commerce Commission
Unification of Transportation Rates

Regional Demands for Adjustment of Rate

Complaints of Discrimination in West and South

Political battle cries that rang- through the upper Mississippi Valley 70 years ago—“Down with Railroad Monopoly,” “Down with Discriminatory Freight Rates”—-have been revived this year in the Far West and the Deep South. Public regulation of railroad rates, first by the states and later by the national government, was a direct result of the Granger movement of the 1870's. The present movement may have even more far reaching results. The economic map of the United States has already been altered by explosive industrial development in the South and West during the war. Readjustments of freight rates to perpetuate and expand that development would have profound repercussions throughout the economic life of the nation.

The Republican platform was silent upon the subject, but the platform adopted by the Democratic National Convention. July 20, pledged “non-discriminatory transportation charges [and] early correction of inequalities in such charges.” An anti-trust suit filed by the Department of Justice, Aug. 23, alleged collusive practices by 47 western railroads to eliminate competition and to maintain high transportation rates. Since rate-making practices in Eastern and Southern territory are similar to those followed by the western roads, success for the government in the present case would undoubtedly be followed by similar suits against all other railroads of the country.

Politics, the War, and the Rate Structure

Coming shortly before a presidential election, the antitrust suit has been characterized by railroad men as a political gesture to placate southern insurgents and to win votes for the administration in the doubtful West. The agreement of the western railroads upon which the suit is based was more than 10 years old when it came under scrutiny by the Anti-Trust Division; more than a year of investigation followed before legal proceedings were instituted. Railroad executives refer to the case as “a pre-election action” and Charles E. Johnston, chairman of the Western Association of Railway Executives, asserted, Aug. 23, that “charges of regional discrimination in freight rates are political buncombe, pure and simple.”

ISSUE TRACKER for Related Reports
Oct. 14, 2022  Passenger Rail
May 01, 2009  High-Speed Trains Updated
Oct. 18, 2002  Future of Amtrak
Apr. 16, 1993  High-Speed Rail
Mar. 10, 1978  Future of American Railroads
Mar. 07, 1975  Railroad Reorganization
Jun. 20, 1973  Railroad Nationalization
Nov. 17, 1961  Railroad Subsidies
Aug. 24, 1960  Railroad Mergers
Jan. 01, 1958  Condition of the Railroads
Jan. 31, 1951  Railway Safety
Oct. 04, 1944  Railroad Freight Rates
Jun. 12, 1939  The Government and the Railroads
Apr. 21, 1938  Government Ownership of the Railroads
Dec. 07, 1937  Railroad Rates and Revenues
Jul. 17, 1937  Advances in Railway Passenger Service
Sep. 27, 1934  Railroad Rates And Federal Regulation of Transportation
Jan. 11, 1933  Railroad Receiverships and Reorganizations
Aug. 26, 1932  The Railroads and the Depression
Oct. 13, 1931  Wages of Railroad Labor
Jul. 09, 1931  Railroad Freight Rates
Feb. 14, 1931  The Railroad Consolidation Controversy
Sep. 19, 1927  The Problem of Railroad Valuation
Mar. 30, 1927  Railroad Consolidation and Prospective Legislation
Mar. 26, 1927  Principles of Railroad Consolidation
Mar. 08, 1926  Railway Labor Disputes Legislation
May 04, 1925  The Baltimore and Ohio Cooperation Plan
Sep. 12, 1924  National Railroad Consolidation and the Van Sweringen Merger
Aug. 14, 1924  Automatic Train Control in Relation to Railroad Casualties
May 28, 1924  The Condition of American Railroads