Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-08-09

that It's reduction of current rates on lum-
Der, salt and grain was perhaps trife
heavy, but it is doubtful ii their arguments
were very effective as TO the reduced cotton
rate. The rate fixed by the commission,
3.:29 cents per ton per mile. IS claimed by
that body TO be higher than the rate in any
other state in the Union. II lower rates are
remunerative elsewhere. it thinks that rate
ought to be so here. The traffic men con-
tended that the proposed rates Were lower
than the rates IN Georgia. but this. 1t APP
pears, was a mistake. except in the case OF
grain. the rates in Georgia being a trife
higher, owing TO the fact that Georgia pro-
duCeS
LITTLE OR No GRAIN,
while Texas is u large producer of it. The
cotton, salt and lumber rates OF Georgia are
shade lower than those proposed by the
commission.
The traffic men claim that Texas roads
should enjoy even higher rates than they
now get, because it costs more 10 build and
equip roads here, and the operating eX
penses are higher than elsewhere. Ties
cost more, fuel and wages are higher. They
point to the number OF receivershipS uow
and in past years, and to the fact that not
more than two roads in the srate-the Texas
and New Orleans and the Fort Worth and
Deuver-are paying the interest on their
bonds, as proof that rates are already too
low. Numerous arguments We're adduced,
and a good deal of eloquence expended in
the effort TO convince the commission that
an enforcement of the proposed rates would
be ruiuOuS to the roads. If. however, these
statements and arguments be compared
with others made previously by themselves
and Numbered from the auti-ComniSSiuu
press and platform. to the effect that only 10
per cent of the traffic IN the state was local,
and subject to the commissions rates, il
will appear that these prior statements
were
FRIGHTFULLY ERRONEOUS.
or the present howl against a reduction of
the rates on three or four articles out of 4
total of about four Thousand. is without
adequate cause. Take cotton. FOR example.
II waS stated by u general freight agent
that perhaps not more than - per cent of it
was shipped on local frcights. the remain
der of ii being shipped on through bills of
lading to Boston. Liverpool, HaVre or else
where. 1t appeared also that the proper
tiOn of the rates on through. shipments of
So per cent of the cotton so billed was less
to the state line OF to the gulf than the
rates allowed by the commission On the 10
per cent Of local shipments within the state.
1t is not clear to the commission how the
roads can accept as their proportion Il less
rate on shipments of - per cent of the cot
ton crop TO points beyond the state, and
cannot without ruin to themselves accept "a
less rate. CORES pondngly higher. however,
on local shipments of only - per cent of the
cotton hauled. Or 10 put il another way: II
i reduction by the commission of the rates
on a small fraction of the cotton crop dos
tined to points within the state will be so
disastrous. why has not the acceptance
by the roads themselves of rates
proportionately less on foreign shipments of
~ perccu, of the cotton hauled by them,
bansruptCd them long a"0. These are
some of the stumbling blocks that the traf-
iic men viii have to remove, before they
can convince the commission that there
should be no reduction in the cotton rates.
If Il bale Of cotton he shipped from Waco TO
Liverpool via Galveston, the railroad will
get as its share of the haul to Galveston,
say 81 less than if the bale was consigned TO
that city on L local shipment. The commits
SION believes, or appears to do so, that when
the road is willing to accept 81 less. it can
afford TO order a reduction on Il local ship
ment from Waco to Galveston of 80 or 90
cents. The roads don't think so, and
therebs hangs tale that may have good
many chapters before it ends.