Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-04-14

IHilH0au tVhil'h''
Comes now the Denver n RIO 6rshuu
r,,road company, In the complaint
I.,,cpnted 4. the DENVER a Rio Grpndo
r,iltoad, aud makes It's separate an'
,wer to the complaint herein filed
This defendant denies that inc
rate. srecifiod In It, schedules or tar
tgs,nd now enforced by the defend
ant. for the transportation Of freight
,,.,w,en Missouri river common points
nh, one hand aud Salt Lake CITY,
man. ON the other, are Unreasonable
oruulud; alleges that the line Of this
dsfepdaut is an intermediate link In
rout,s betycen said Missouri river
common points and said Salt Lake
City;that this defendant has no knowl-
edge In regard to the cost OF movement
ot freight over the lines Of the other
defendants herein, and that this de-
tepdsnt does not participate In any
traffic between San Francisco and Salt
Lake City which orig mates or termin-
ate. In said salt Lake City; aud this
Ietendant denies that the actual cost
M movement Of freight over ita lines
nrtrnfllc between Missouri common
poinisand Salt Lake CITY does not eN'
coed of per cent. per ton per mile.
This defendant denies each nnd
every allegation In the fourth para
rrauh OF cOmplsinanps complaint con
lAined.
8-rhis de'nndant denies that The
circumstances mad conditions nilcct
lpV rates between Missouri river
common pninls and BGlt Lake CITY
nfr substantially similar 70 the elf
rums,auCes aud conditions Affecting
rates between Missouri silver com mOn
paints and the city Of san FTHuciscoi
and denies that the rates between SAID
Missouri common points AMI the snid
salt Lake CITY, Utah, are In violation
OF the provisions Of tho "Rct 10 regulate
commerce" and donlee that the de.
PENDANT charge excessive or uulhwiul
rates Tor the transportation OF various
llule Ot freight, or that It, said charges
constitute "A violation OF the "act 10
regulate commerce.
II
And Tor = further answer this Dc.
fendAut, the Denver x Rio Gfande
railway company, respectfully states,
that 1t operates line Of railway be.
tween Denver. IN the State Of
Colorado, aud Grand Junction In said
state, liz railway line being construct
cd through n rugged and mountainous
country, with sharp curvature aud
heavy grade. and at great expense ~
% construction and operation; that In
connection with certain oi tho other
defendants herein named, u engages
In the transportation OF freight ho-
tween Missouri common points Gud
points east thereof ON the ono hand
aud Sal. Lake city aud tine city OF San
Francisco on the other; but alleges
that ID does not engage IN the trans.
portalion u any freight between San
Francisco aud Salt Lake City, the
shipment whereof bo ins OF ends In
said Sal, Lake CITY.
That said salt Lake City il an IN.
land city, not situated or nrnr any
uavig hlp stream ami Ia too far r..
moved from any river or coast point 10
have the advantage Of water trunspor.
'tatlon; that all traffic between
Missouri river common points and
points east thereof aud the said salt
Lake city Il transported by rail alone,
aud that any competition affecting
traffic beginning at or destined for Salt
Lake CITY 10 rail competition alone and
IL con fined 10 the competition between
certain Of the c0mpAnlt5 made parties
defendant herein.
That as between points ON the
Missouri river and east thereof aud
points on the Pacific coast, including
said city OF San Francisco. traffic IA
transported not only by rail, but nlsO
and to very large amouut-by water;
that the circumstances and con.
dltl0ns affecting traffic between points
on the Missouri river and east thereof,
nnd points such as San Francisco ON
the Pacific coast-h,roin designated
n "through traillc"-ato not at all
similar TO the circumstances and con.
ditions affecting traffic to and from
said salt Lake CITY; that by means Of
transportation partly by water anu
partly by railroad through agencies
not affected 10y or within tho
control OF the "Act TO Regulate
Commerce." there exists competition
controlling In character add amount
Ne to such through traffic, which
likes and determines the rates nj
which this defendant aud the COM
pAnies associated with II In tho carfi-
ngo OF such traffic shall transport the
rnmc, aud that such competition com
pels this defendant aud ila associates
70 make rates IN 10 such through
traffic much below what would be-
reasonable and lust for this service
rendered, II computed solely upon the
cost OF such service and with n reason
able profit ON the capital invested In
The railways and facilities by means
OF which said service II rendered:
That the rates charged by this de.
remnant aud Its associates on traffic
10 and from Salt Lake are reasonable
anu Just, and are less than what might
be Justly charged, except for the rail
City.
This document further alleges TINT
me rates charged upon trsilic between
missouri river common points and
faclhe coast points are uuTeAsonably
low, aud are ~ unTossonnbly lu,s by
reason OF circumstances and condi.
lions which do not exit Ia like
traillc 70 and from salt Lake CITY;
mat while the delentant and
us associates are engaged In
lranspotllng 10 and nom Salt
Lake CITY and 10 and from other Local
ports situated between the Missouri
RIVER ON the one hand and this Pacific
coast on the other at reasonable rates.
ths defendant ana liz sRid Aaanclatrs
IAN slio over the same. tracks aui