The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-02-26
IN The RAILWAY WORLD.
Commission and Railway Men Dis
cussing New Rate Tariffs,
DALLAS FREIGHT BUREAUS ANTICS,
'e'ser Tor the Hot Springs Road
recent judicial Decisions-Head-
light flashcs-Persona,.

ia'iiV'Va commission the following gath
cred at the office today to discusavarlous
proposed freight rate changes. r.. b.
Perkins, c. NJ. Swan, T.. b. Coonbs md
D. w. Tate of the Cotton Belt; u. b. Keel
err Fort Worth and Denver City; l.. b.
Conner, Fort Worth and Rio Grandc: 4;
| II. Turner Texas and Pacific: w. f. Nc
MILAN, Texas Central: z. II. Goodwin
santa Fe; J. II. Denison, Galveston
| freight bureau: II. W. Downey. Houston
East and West Texas; Jlhn Summarized
Quanah Cement Plaster works
The subjects considered were as folloSs
Grain, grain products and hay Joint rates
and the advisabilty of using a system of
arnitraries In reaching "A maximum in
| stead of summing the locals: less than
| carload rates in tho transportation be.
tween points in Texas eff apples ana ,ese-
tables, first, second, third and fourth class:
saddlery and harness and furniture, first
! Glass; horse shoes, wire, nails. sheet iron
| etc, fourth class; wrought iron pine
! tourth class, and packing house and pro
| ducts fourth class and the necessity of
| covering some 10 widen the territory for
IeNas Jobbers and manufacturers from
| ten 10 twenty-five miles; the practicable
| Ivy OF rate of IS cents per 100 pounds on
| cotton gins and cotton GIN mac4in-
! cry, and the necessity of subjecting nay
! bale ties and corrugated iron roofing In
! carloads to class Il rates. the fixing of
| maximum rate of l6 cents per 100 pounds
| on architectural iron between common
| point territory points the recognition Of
a dimerential under St. Louis on agricul-
tural implements, canned goods and
twenty-cisht other commodities in favor
of Galveston; rates for the transportation
| of cement plaster in lots of 1900 pounds or
more between points in common point
territory.
The railroad representatives had no
| suggestions to offer in regard to the pro-
! position to abandon the practice OF adj
| ding the locals TO reach a maximum IN
| grain rates and it may he put down as a
! c'rtalnty that n system of arbitrarieS Will
be adopted and enforced hereafter. While
| grain rates were up for discussion, how
| ever, reference was had to "A late pro-
| nunciamento from the Dallas freight
bureau to the effect that the commission
| was noSlectng its business in not forcing
| the railroads to lower the Texas corn rate
| TO meet an alleged way down rate from
Kansas According to the statements of
, the traffic men of the lines Interested In
the movement of Kansas corn the mini
mum rate from Kansas to Galveston IS
/ II cents per 100 pounds and not Ia cents as
the Dallas freight bureau would nave
people believe. Furthermore the prevail
ng price of corn IN the Interior of ansas
is IL cents while il is II cents in Texas,
and IL was shown that when = cents was
| paid for corn In Kansas city, that amount
included i9I. cents freight PAID Tor bring
ing in the corn from Kansas points 10
/ that city. II was also developed that IN
all cases the minimum cost Of MOVING
corn from Kansas points TO Galveston
WAS = cents per 100 pounds ana mat
/ wherever the rate from Kansas cry
proper was quoted at less than that hg.
nre the grain had already paid the local
rate into Kansas City. thus maintaining
the " cents minimum in the aggregate,
. Mr.. Den.son of tho Galveston freight
bureau stated that Galveston grain deal
crs had 10 objections to the present gram
Judge S,eadmau answered that If II was
assumed that the present ra'' or oo cents
ucr 100 pounds ON cotton IRON ieN"s com com :
mon point territory 10 Galveston was iair
a rate Of about cents per LOG POUNDS on
corn would he about right. taking III con.
sidcration the relative value OF II carlcai
of each of these products.
Mcssrs Bartholomew and Goodwin re-
plicd that no system Of rates based upon
The value of bulk Of the shipment "as
feasible and that the cost OF ths n nav
must always he the main consideration.
Mr. bartholomew also called attention 10
tho fact that the present gram rate IN
Texas was the lowest that had ever been
Judge Perkins explained that th"iTeZas
railroads were fixed to handle cotton, Vnls
being their principal freight TOT years,
while the grain business was new thlhg
win them and that the difference was 81
great that no comparison between inc Two
was admissible lie also TOOK tine poslllon
that the interstate lines wets N'' Ia
to further the policy of the state ana
commission to build up Texas seuPoI
and asked If it was logical or talr y. ue1
prive them of their aDlhty 10 coIl.iim ,,
in the line by arbitrarily seeking to reduce
their revenue by cutting the gram lale'
objection was made to liking u niahl-
mum grain rate, some OF the fre'ent Hit'l
/ asserting that II would mean ru!nauoh lot
/ tb,lr roads No objection was made to n
Il cent max mum for one line hauis how
ever. tito. 90, a.,
plication from the International ana I'll eat
Northern for authority to establish a rate
n t9ib cents on corn from Taylor anu
points west Of there TO Larsno, , 1u' he AZ
allowed TO eliminate the difference 20
yond the common point boundary on Mex
lean export corn. ,--.,,. "a NJ,
NJ Eaelcr Of the Fort worth ana Den.
vcr civ asked that the common point
= torritorv be shrunk from Childre:s to iowa
Park in so far as corn a4'u gra a Inc az
> On his line are conGe,rnou, ,tnhltions north
absence of competitive cohui''o"' ''' 80
of the latter point. .s ,oss ,ha,
In the matter Of the propoSen ieSs 'n ma
car load rate reductions on ap Z, yvomid
, moi benefit the shipper 20 any appreSiapI'
extent. and that jcbbeIs IN iruit am Se
! etalies raised in other states wv" ~
, the biggest winners thereby. Ih@ inui ,Jo
lions are that the reduction VIII ne i''a'e'
. however , .o1,,ctions n
hav rates II was explained that II We
I nov, the practice Of balers at the relutts =.
{ of retailers to make bales OF shEht 1cllsttt
! that would show up big. Hay was Doug ~,
5 hv the ton and reta'led by the ple, an -.
4 t6at The railroads ought to ne httne ~
s,iffsr in the matter Of rates. because " W.,
shape Of the package did not per my r Ing
shirDer to get as much hay IN ,ne ~
ne formerly. With regard to the cothl,. ,,.,,
i Hon of Indian Territory hay u va si 81, e. I,
e | hat n was because II could be S'ttt1 ~,
, aln,cst nothing from the Indians, aIn -
, becailsa of low rates from the ielIl'p n /,
! mat II could come in and ran Texas nay
. | off the market. a., t,trt rates
y No objection was made 10 the JOINT rAt a
proposed By the railroad conIilssion o -.
= ! arctftc~tural iron. g MS Inacnln,ts' "a
! ,,nroted iron roofing and othcf lroh ~ IL
g ,cts and 1t can be taken for grahteu u4H'
when the question OF recosnlzlln,g, , es.
tahushed differeutials In favor OF na'N a.,
1 | Ton under St Louis on agncuIIuIdt All ~, ~
o Elements and certain other comm ~, ~
MAS reached the repreSentauN.fs y. 20,
cc1"iveston lines said they had nothing, ,o,
4. 7 - "a