Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-08-16


Carolina Ss1s per cent greater, South
Carolina 55 per cent. greater.
FURNITURE.
For fifty miles the rates compared with
Texas are as follows:
Alabama 100 per cent. greater, Georgia
40 per cent. greater, Mississippi SO per
cent, greater, Louisiana 40 per cent.
greater, Arkansas % per cent. greater,
North Carolina % per cent. greater,
South Carolina 90 per cent. greater.
For 100 miles-Alabama, 60 per cent.
greater; Georgia, per cent. greater;
Mississippi, 1853 per cent. greater; Lou
isiana, per cent. greater; Arkansas, 2
per cent. greater; North Carolina, 8
per cent. greater; South Carolina, II
per cent. greater.
Referring to the commodity of cotton
factory products, it is claimed by you
that the rates in Texas on this charac-
tee of freight are 200 per cent. higher
than in the states named. By refer
ence to the statement hereto attached,
an average percentage for fifty miles
shows that the rates in those states are
20 per cent. less than in Texas; an aver
age for 100 miles shows that they are
81 per cent. less in those states than in
Texas. 1t must be borne in mind that
the term tcotton factory products in
cludes only n certain line of goods man.
ufactured from cotton and does not cover
all character of dry goods, which, by
reference to the statement, it VIII be
readily seen take much higher rate
than the Texas rates on dry goods.
We would continue these figures ad
infinitum, but we deem that we are sim
ply consuming time by selecting any fur
of differen ce between the rates in the
other states and in Texas Any one so
disposed can refer to the sheet hereto at
tached and make further comparisons.
The tariffs of the lines in the several
states, from which the figures in the in
closed statement were taken, are here
with handed to the committee, that they
may determine for themselves whether
the figures in the statement are in ac-
cOrdance with those in the tariffs. The
tariffs are as follows:
North Carolina-Carolina Central rail-
road, tariff No. 3, applying between all
stations on that line.
South Carolina Charleston and Sa-
vannah railroad company S local freight
tariff No. l, applying between all sta
tions on that line.
Georgia-Tariff No. l, Savannah di-
vision of the Central railroad of Georgia
and the Southwestern, Augusta and
Savannah railroads, including supple
ment No, 2 applying on cotton, and sup
plement No. on cotton factory pro-
ducts.
East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia
railway local freight tariff applying be-
tween all stations in the state of Georgia,
filing No. Is ,008.
Observation-Disclosures, Great Southern
railroad company tariff No 6, used
between all stations on that line.
ssissippi-Vicksburg and Meridian
railroad tariff No. L, 1920; Illinois Cen
trail railroad tariff, Mississippi g. We
deem it proper to add that the last
named tariff is now being contested in
the courts of Mississippi by the Illinois
Central railroad as beng unreasonably
low.
Arkansas-St Louis, Arkansas and
Texas railway tariff No. 1875 applying
between all stations on that line in Ar
kansas.
Louisiana-Vicksburg, Shreveport and
Pacific tariff L 1853, applying between
all stations on that line.
(The committee will note that the cot
ton rates in the states of Louisiana and
Arkansas are omitted from the state
ment, as we were not in possession of the
cotton tariffs of those states, il being
neither our desire nor intention to insert
any figures IN the statement which we
could not verify by submitting tariffs to
you. We wish further to add that the
tariffs submitted are the official rates of
the lines names, exchanged in the usual
manner between railroad companies for
1,,Ni
their rates to points IN their respective
territories. For a notification OF this
statement, the committee can readily |
refer to the officials of the lines whose
names are affixed to the tariffs
Texas-HoustOn and Texas Central |
'ailway local tariff No. 3; commodity |
5ariff No. So on grain; commodity tariff |
No. 40 on flour; Houston and Texas |
Central special b 10S applying on beer
rhe classifcations applying on these |
ariffs are, for the Southern states other |
han Texas and Arkansas, what Is known |
Is the ''SOuthern railway and steamship |
which is also inclosed |
herewith; for Texas and Arkansas, |
Western classification No. and Texas
md Pacific railway supplements Num- /
Ders l, 2 and 3, covering exceptions to
hat classification.
a comparison of the percentages as
furnished herewith and the state
nent attached with the charges
made by the subcommittee are Ger
ainly conclusive proof that the data from
which the subcommittee derived their
deductions was either wrong, or else that
n making their comparisons they Sc
ected points that were governed by
water competition or other abnormal
auses; it being a well known fact that
he laws of all the other states, with the
'ossible exception of Arkansas, permit
he railways to make rates between
POINTS where water competition exists or
ther eXtTaneous causes, regardless of
heir rates to intermediate points. In
ther words, the rates locally In those
tates where causes arise to prevent it,
ire not governed by what is generally
nown as the "long and short haul
lause. - For example, your committee
ubmitted rates on cotton factory prod
icts between Atlanta, Ca, and certain
ther points IN that state, showing that
Thile for distance of 100 miles, a rate
f IL cents per hundred was
made, 81 cents per hundred
7as charged for haul of fifty -four miles
n the same line and IN the same direc-
ion This n foi tior, oP