The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-04-09
THE CONTENTION OF SAN FRAN
CISCO.

81
CISCO.
The argument of the San Francisco
Bulletin may be thus stated in brief The
interior California merchant who buys
in the Eastern market alongside of the
San Francisco merchant, and ships west
by rail at the same rate, estops the San
Francisco merchant from shipping back
from San Francisco and competing with
the interior merchant in his own iuris-
diction. It is therefore concluded by the
San Francisco claimants that the back
haul rate from San Francisco should be
SO low that the San Francisco dealer can
compete with the interior centers of dis
tribution in goods both procure from the
East
Now, since that would involve carrying
the goods on the back haul for nothing,
, or at least for sum only equal to the
difference between the two incoming
rates from the East where the interior
dealer pays slightly more, it is obvious
sAoS eAO thALk ID Ill pEdcllCdDl6.
Let US carry the argument of the Bulle-
tan out to its legitimate conclusion and
see where it would land us. If the Fresno.
Sacramento or Marysville freight rate
from the East is to be so adjusted that the
Eastern goods can be hauled past those
points to San Francisco, and back to
fhnGa n;finc hot h. c.,
merchant can sell level with, or less than
the merchants Of the interior cities, why
should not the rule apply as to still more
eastern points? Why should not it at
tach to Reno, to Ogden, to any point east
of San Francisco buying in Nep York or
Chicago? Why not haul goods from
Chicago to San Francisco and then back
to Reno for a rate no higher than the
freight charge from the East to Reno?
1t will be seen that the San Francisco
claim means just this, and nothing more
nor less: That more shall be charged for
carrying from New York to Reno or
Marysville than for that distance with
twice the mileage added between those
points and San Francisco. How long
could any such injustice and inequality
be maintained, even supposing the trans
continental roads should undertake it?
The situation is simply this: Given A
a common center Of supply for B 500
miles distant and c LOCO miles distant.
A dealer at G claims that the carrier from
a shall transport to him at a rate that
viii enable him to pass the goods over
the 1000 miles to himself and then back
over the 500 miles to B and meet the dis
tribution of that point on equal terms. 1t
is clear that either the rate to B from A
must be so much higher than the rate to
G as will equal the original tariff from A
to with the charge from C to B added;
or else the distributors at C must induce
the suppliers at A to sell to them as much
lower than to the buyers at B as will
serve to blot out the distances between
the two western points as represented in
the cost of distribution.
Sacramento met this exact question
when it was the most eastern terminal
point. 1t then sold to communities east
and north of it TO advantage, but when
they were enabled to buy at the East and
ship to themselves at no greater rate than
was charged the Sacramento dealer Sac
ramento lost the trade. 1t was the out
come of commercial laws of carriage and
traffic, and Sacramento had nothing to do
but concede it. She did not then. nor
does she now, demand, as does San Fran
cisco, that there shall be such discrimina-
ton in her favor as viii enable her to
compete with other recognized terminal
points nearer to the original market OF
supply.
But Sacramento does insist that more
western center of distribution shall not
be so Disseminated for that it can, in her
trade area, undersell US in goods both
draw from the same Eastern source.