Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-01-07
The RaouI-WaIIace Controversy.

The RaOul-W allaCe controversy
In another column we publish Commits
sioner Wallace's reply to President RaouPs
letter reviewing a previous interview ofthe
Commissioner relative to freight rates on
fertilizers. In his letter President Raoul
made several strong points. One of them
was that rates are fixed by the COM
mission without giving the railroads
an opportunity to be heard. Major
Wallace virtually comedies this point
lie saws: SIN answer to this
l have for myself to say, and am sure
the other members Of the commission Will
agree with me, that he Mr. Raoul) shall
have cause for no further complaint on
this ground" If the controversy be-
tween President RaOul and the commits
SION is productive Of nothing more than
this concession it Will not have been IN
vain. II will be generally admitted that
the railroads ought to have an opportunity
to be heard when a change in the rates IS
proposed. There may be reasons, OF
which the commission are unaware and
which the railroads could furnish, which
would modify the proposed action Of the
commission.
Another point made by President Raoul
was. that. according to Major Wallace's
admission in an interview, the commits
sion essaved 10 assist dropping industries
of the state at the expense of the rail-
roads. The admission was in connection
with the lumber industry. Major Wal
lace explains the circumstances under
which the concession to the lumber men
/ was made. and denies that any evidence
/ can be found anywhere that the commits
sion favors taxing one interest to sustain
/ another. Either Major Wallace did not
/ say exactly what ne meant in the inter
/ view which President Baoul reviewed
or else what he said was mol
correctly understood. But IN thC
interview which we publish this morning
/ is there not something which seems tC
sustain the impression which PresIden
| Raoul got from the first interview that ont
/ industry IS taxed to sustain another
I Mai. Wallace saws: For instance, in the
case now complained Of by Mr.. RaOul We
were aware, among olher things, that the
PLANTER who used the fertilizers in pro
ducing cotton, and who bore the burden
Of payment, was not getting within $40 ;
bale as much as he received in 1SS0-l-anC
| hence we feel it our duty to make Tho
slight reduction alluded to-"
The reduction was made, it appears, no
because the rate was unjust or unfair
but because the planting industry was
less profitable than in previous years
Are the railroads not required by the
commission to help the dropping plantins
interests? Whether the planters will re
ceive tine intended aid or not is an unset
tied question. Mr.. RaouI says they vii
not, and certain dealers in fertilizers say
they will. If rates are made with refer
ence to the condition of industries
there must be frequent changes
| Even the railroads could rea
sonably ask that rates be RAISED
when freights are light. The discussion
of this railroad commission law having
been begun it probably viii be continued
until the Legislature meets and an eff
fort is made to have the law modified
The question in which we feel the mos
interest is whether the commissions alb
solute power over the rates does not tenC
to prevent the investment Of capital IL
| railroads in this State.