Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-03-19
,u IMPORTANT DOCUMENT,
rsnUl,lut Of the Chamber Of Com
m.rcs Before The Interstate
CONVERGE COMMISSION AT WASH.
INGTON.


h. &
tr,.tstaie commerce commission NJ
Warrington against the railroads
..,ned therein. The allegations made
J., This complaint " sustained, must
certainly open the eyes Of the lesisla'
,op In Washington to the neeessi'y OF
law. n II does not already
,xl.t, to protect residents OF important
,nland cities from the extoftionate
charge, Of the railroads. The CONF
,lalnt ia n strong document, carefully
invn, aud shows that the subject has
beeu thoroughly considered 10y the
commissioner Of the transportation
bprrau, There are two distinct alleged
valuations Of the Interstate commerce
law, the first being the unreasonable
ness Of the railroad charges, and the
second the discrimination against Salt
Lake City In favor OF California ter
miuals.
10 appreciate the amount Of money
inyolyed We have only 10 stale that
Ills Territory pays annually between
kIOOO, OOD anu 90, 100000 for ireightH.
we congratulate the shippers Of this
r,ty that AZ last this important step
ms been taken to secure redress, anu
We hone they viii give the transpor-
tatlon bureau the financial backing
deserves.
BEroRE nus INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
COMMISSION.
Tho salt Lake Chamber OF Com.
mere. against tue Union Pacific rail-
way, the Denver * Rio Graude Eill-
road, the Rio Grande Western Rail'
way, the southern Pacific Co., the
Burlington y Missouri River l'ailrond
CO.. tho Atchison, Topeka 4 sanie re
Railroad Co., the Chicago, Rock leland
4 Pacific Railway Go.
The petition OF the above named
complainant respectfully shows;
lst That II Ia "a mercantile society In.
coryorated under the laws Of the
Territory OF Utah and composed Of
persons engaged la commercial pur.
suit Including thesbipmeu, Of Inter
state traffic between various points Ia
the STATE. nud Territories of thu United
States and Salt Lake city Ia the Terri
tory OF Utah nrd main purpose OF lie
INCORPORATION Ia to obtain relief Tor it,
mem6er8 In transportation matters ami
advance the bushes. Interests OF salt
Lake CITY.
gnd. The defendants ahCge.nGmei
are csmmon carriers and under COM
mon control, management or arrange
ment for tho continuous carriage or
shipment aud engaged in the transpOr-
tallon Of property wholly by lines Of
failfoad between points or places In
the States OF Missouri, Kansas, Iowa
aud Nebraska aud points Or places In
the Territory Of Utah and States Of
Nevada and California, and NJ such
ommon carriers ars subject TO the pro.
visions OF the "Act 10 regulate COM
mpfcr."
sfd. That the rates specified In the
schedules or tariffs Of charges put Into
eject by defendants and now enforced
over tholr lines for the transportation
OF various kinds and CLASSES OF freight
therein mentioned and known by said
defendants as Missouri River common
points, that N % say irom Sioux city,
lowe, on the north, aud kausa, city,
Missouri, on the south, and all
Missouri River common points
inclusive, also from san Fran
cisco, California to Salt Lske CITY,
Utah, are unreasonable ami unjust anu
In violation OF the first section OF the
"Act to regulate Commerce" for the
reason as complainant is informed and
believes that tho actual cost OF move.
ment Of freight over the defendants
lines including all the elements OF cost
that can be properly charged against
the movement Of freight from Missouri
river common points aud from Sau
Francisco, California " Salt Lake
City, Utah, docs not exceed one half
OF one cent PER ton per mite while the
charges made ami collected for this
service nro In SOME cases over nine
times this amount and IN no case less
than three times the actual cost Of
movement.
4ih. As u further cause OF action the
complainant alleges that the rates now
established aud charged by defendants
for the carriage over their lines Of the
various kinds aud classes Of freight
ftom the Missouri river common points
described In paragraph three thereof,
to San Francisco In the State OF Call.
fornin and TO Snlt Lake City In the
Territory OF Utah constitute I'M
lust discrimination and Viola
tlon Of section four u the
"Act TO fegulRts commerce" AMI give
undue aud unreasonable preference
aud advantage In favor Of the mer-
chants, dealers and shippers OF San
Fmncsco, aud traffic transported there
TO against tho merchants, dealers AMI
shippers OF Salt Lake City, and traffic
transported thereto, and subjects the
trade anu commerce Of Salt Lake CITY,
hni persons engaged theieini 10 undue
aud Unreasonable prejudice and disad'
vantage and Ia violation Of the "Act TO
regulate commerce"
9th, That the rates now established
and charged by tho defendants for the
transportation over their lines Of the
various kinds aud Glasses Of freight
articles from the Missouri river, COM
mon points described In paragraph
three hereof to Salt Lake CITY, In the
Territory Of Utah, aud San Franclsco,
IN the State Of California, produce AMI
result In greater compensation In the
aggregate iol the transportation Of like
kinda ofsaii freight articles undersub.
slantlaliy similar circumstances and
conditions for the shorter distance from
said or either Of said Missouri river
common points to Salt LIKE CITY,
Utah, than Tor the longer dis
lance over the same lnes, In
the same direction ~ San
Francisco, California, the shorter
being Included In the longer distance
aud said rates are therefore In violation
OF tue prOvl,ions Of tho "A'ct 10 regu.
late commerce"
9th. That the distance from Omahn
and Kansas CITY. tgo az iht. priucipal