Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-04-10
NOT UNFAIR TO OUR PORTS.
Mr.. Todd Explains Why the steamers do
Not Stop ut Newport News.

llICHMOND, hpEll " io1S'
To he Editor of he DtsDdlch:
As there are two sides to the question
concerning the attitude OF the United
States and Brazil Steamship Company IN
relation TO Newport News, and the city
press has so far stated but one or them,
the writer asks, in fairness to.the other
side, 70 present TO your readers concise
and candid resume of the whole SITUATION:
Prior to the 18th of December, 1891, all
the steamers OF this line called at Newport
News on the olt,rdrd trips for passengers
and freight. None Of them have ever
stopped there on the intedrd or return trips,
Since December these steamers have
omitted Newport News on their outtodrd
trips also. To ascertain the cause OF this
action on their part, and 10 induce the
company, if practicable, TO re-esteblish
| their Newport News schedule, committee
| from the Chamber of Commerce OF Rich
mond visited New York late IN January
and held several conferences with It's ON
GERS. The committee represented the
| Touring mills of this city, its coffee inter
ests, and the traffic department OF the
| Chesapeake and Ohio railway. All the
| points bearing on these several interests
wers most patiently and lntelligently dis
cussed. and the pivotal facts on which the
| comnany,s action had been based were
| frankly stated, These facts were, IN the
| opinion of the writer. simply unanswera-
| bic. and so long as they remain facts they
| fully justify the company III their decision
TO cease calling there.
WHY THE CHANGE WAS MADE.
While their reasons were not given for
publication, the writer deems 1t not IN
| delicate to state them here, believing 1t ne
cessary 10 do go to yindicate the company
| from the upfriendly attacks that have been
so publicly made against 1t. They are rs
First. II was stated that the United
| States and Brazil Mail Steamship Com
pany had been run at o tremendous loss
not less than $3.50. 600 having been sunk in
| tue past few years.
Second. That in analyzing their accounts
| an effort had been made to ascertain where
| the losses had been sustained, and In do
| ing so it had become apparent that the
! Newport News branch of the service had
| been one of the chief sources of loss.
Third. A detailed verbal staten ent was
made TO the Richmond committee, show
| ing the items of loss by this service, all OF
which cannot now be remembered, but
| they embraced ID part-yiz.
(a) The loss Of time equal to about
| three days. between leaving New York
and the departure from Newport News.
| (b) The excessive cost OF piIotage IN
anu out OK the captS.
(c) The consumption of coal. and cost
of maintenance OF passengers and crew for
these extra days.
| Id Tho loss OF passenger travel by rea-
son Of delaying those going aboard in New
| York for this stop at Newport News. which
| frequently diverted travel to other routes,
uia Southampton. 6c.
| (e) The increased risk consequent on
going IN and out of port at Newport News.
~ The crowded condition of the piers
| of the Chesapeake and Ohio railway. max
| ing it uncertain about satisfactory berth
room for their steamers, and sometimes
causing additional delay and expense.
| lg) The entire handling and co-Operage
charges on the -four taken In there lprin-
| cipally on the -four received from Balti-
more, which was brought BY steamer to
Norfolk and thence lightered to Newport
(h) The Baltimore four had to undergo
several more landings than II II went
aboard ct New York and The extra labor.