Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-08-22

isiana, 4 per cent. greater; Arkansas, ,
per cent. greater; North Carolina, 9
per cent. greater; South Carolina, l.
per cent. greater.
Referring to the commodity of cotton
factory products, it is claimed by you
that the rates in Texas on this charac-
ter of freight are 200 per cent. higher
than i'll 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 thew are
SO per cent. less in those states than in
Texas It must be borne in mind that
the term ''cotton factory products in
cludes only a 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 a much higher rate
than the Texas rates on dry goods.
We would continue these figures ad
infnitum, but we deem that we are sim
ply consuming time by selecting any fur
ther commodities to figure the percentages
of differen ce between the rates IL 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 NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Central rail-
road, tariff No. 5, applying between all
stations on that line.
South Carolina-CharlestCn and Sa-
vannah railroad company local freight
tariff No. l, applying between ali 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. applying on cotton. aud sup
plement No. 2 on cotton factory pro-
ducts.
East Tennessee. Virginia and Georgia
railway local freight tariff applying be-
tween all stations in the state Of Georgia,
fling No. lG ,008.
Observation-Disclosures, Great Southern
railroad cOmpany's tariff No. 6, used
between all stations on that line.
ississippi-Vicksburg and Meridian
railroad tariff No. L, 1920; Illinois Cen
trail railroad tariff, Mississippi GO. 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.
Arkausas-St Louis, Arkansas and
Texas railway tariff No. 1875 applying
between all stations oil 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, it being
neither our desire nor intention to insert
any figures N 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 i'll the usual
manner between railroad companies for
their information and guidance in basing
their rates to points IN their respective
territories. For n YeTification 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
railway local tariff No. 5; commodity
tariff No. 3G.on grain; commodity tariff
No 20 on flour; Houston and Texas
Central special B los applying on beer.
The classifications applying on these
tariffs are, for the Southern states other
than Texas and Arkansas, what Is known
asEhe '"Southern railway and steamship
classification which is also Enclosed
her9Fith; for Texas and Arkansas,
WesBsrn classification No. and Texas
andRPacitic railway supplements Num-
beEs1, 2 and 3, covering exceptions to
stnat classification.
2 \ comparison of the percentages as
furnished herewith and the state
ment attached with the charges
made by the subcommittee are GER
tainiy conclusive proof that the data from
which the subcommittee derived their
deductions was either wrong, or else that
in making their comparisons they Sc
lected points that were governed by
water competition or other abnormal
seaNses; it being q well known fact that
fl8e4sws Of all the other states, with the
kgSsible exception of Arkansas, permit
til Railways to make rates between
Ss1 kksre water competition exists or
other seXtfaneous causes, regardless of
their rates to intermediate points. In
other-RQrds, the rates locally in those
states assseagses arise to prevent it,
aTeetot gdFel ~ what is generally
kIlbZn ass the sHlOng and short haul
cldusea12.. EoEexample, your committee
submitte8fates on cotton factory prod
ucts between Atl4nta, Ca. 3, and certain
other points in thasGate, showing that
while for distance oAesa2 miles, rate
of II cents per hahdred was
made, 81 cents per sihundTed
was charged for haul of ffty-fodf rides
on the same line and IN the same 7dFeeFs
ton. This is fair illustration of the7
method adopted by your committee in
reaching basis for comparison of rates
i'll other states and III Texas, and you, as
chairman, insisted upon the comparison
being made upon the basis adopted by
you, which, to any reasonable mind,
was eminently unfair and unjust.
I think we have sufficiently shown that
the local rates prevailing in the state of
Texas, compared with reference to the
conditions prevailing IN this state and
with reference to the local rates and con-
ditions prevailing in the other states re- |
70 III