The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1896-10-30
formation from all other firms similar

formation from all other firms similar
" situated.
offered . resolution that the rule OF
the Interstate Commission be the rule
Of this Board: THAT on request OF
either tho complainant or defendant
this Board shall make public the cases
and tho reasons for the decision of the
Board" See pagei47, Nov. 9-Minutes.
Your reasons for reduction were pub
lished in tho State papers Dec. Goth,
1895. The main reason was that "a
road passing through North Carolina,
South Caroline and Georgia should
serve all their patrons in these States
on a parity in the rates used" Page
H-Minutes. This was q specious ar.
gument, calculated to mislead. The
conditions which obtain In these States
are entirely different. For instance.
in South Carolina the average haul is
70 miles and the net income is $493 per
mile. In Georgia the average haul is
$50 miles and the net income is $940
per mile. It is against every prin-
ciple of taxation to tax 70 acre farm
worth $493 the same as $50 acre farm
worth $940, and 80 it is against every
principle of ''just and reasonable" rate
making to fix the same rates for con-
ditions 80 widely different. 1t is there
fore unjust to fix the same rate for
South Carolina as for Georgia.
My position in this matter was en-
dorsed by the Legislature. If the fer
tilizer rates should be the same as in
Georgia, then of course the passenger
rates should be the same. The pas.
senger rates were thoroughly discussed
in the Legislature and the first class
rates for South Carolina was fixed at
8 IA cents per mile against 3 cents in
Georgia for the same service.
If the fertilizer rate should be the
same as the Georgia rate then why
should the cotton rate not be the same?
Tho South Carolina rate on cotton for
70 mile haul is 25 cents, and the Geor-
gia rate for the same haul is % cents.
In speech published in States papers
February 10, 1894, and again October
25, 1895, I urged on this Board of re-
duction Of the rate on cotton instead
of fertilizer if they must reduce some
thing; because the rate on crude cotton
was higher than the manufactured ar
ticle. The weight and bulk Of these
two commodities are practically the
same, and the manufactured goods are
five times more valuable. Crude ma.
terial should have q lower rate than
more valuable manufactured articles.
The reduction of the rate on cotton
would have been altogether in the in
terest of the farmer for whom these
fertilizer manufactures were SO solicit
GUS. The reduction OF the fertilizer
rate was not in the interest OF the
farmer. At the conference itwas shown
that the bulk of fertilizers was sold by
the carload to merchants. T'" parties
who pay the freight and fix ;.r piiee
most altogether delivered and Inc price
is fixed by the fertilizer mannfw wturer.
The farmer sis not in it" Whit ben
eft is freight reduction of 80 cents a
ton? The truth is the reduction OF
the fertilizer rate was against tho in
terests OF the farmer that 4 destroy
ed competition, increasin.; the demand
and the price. The ra'lToats which
serve the people were hurt. The fer
tilizer factories of Charlcston which
competed with the interior N 'lS ""'e
shut out of the most valuable '''r.,oty
In this State, and were injured.
The sole beneticiaries OF the iertihz,
er reduction were two or three interior
mills. The many have been made to
suffer for the benefit OF the few. In
communication to this Board of Octo-
ber 10, Mr.. w. A. Clark, President
Of the Columbia Phosphate Company,
tells what interest the farmers have in
freight reduction on fertilizer. He
says:
10 illustrate: They have beer
offering acid sacked and tagged F. c.
b., Charleston, at 1928. Now add tc