The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-09-19
new YORK is WORRIED
Great Increase In Grain Exports from Nor.
folk and Newport News Causes a Furry.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION CHARGED
IL ts Alleged that the Chesapeake and
Ohio Hallway Company Secure
shippers by Offering Cheap Water
transportation by Means OF the
G. q o. Steamship COMPANY

-. me statement recently published by
me Nirginian. showing the wonderful
sroWth OF Norfolk's export trade as re-
CARDS the shipment of corn from this
port. has created IL great deal of com
hieht bS papers throughout the coun-
nv. II was not known that Norfolk and
Ne"port News together ship more
corn imam is shipped from any other
port IN the country. with the excep-
non OF New Orleans and Baltimore and
realization of our wonderful growth
- this direction within such q short
oeTiod- has created something OF a SEN
shiion In business circles I'm several
cities Including New York and Baltl-
more.
a Virginian representative, i'm con-
Versation with IL Baltimore business
man IN this city yesterday found II
hAru 10 convince him that Baltimore
was only such short distance ahead of
Norfolk and Newport News in the mat
yer Oh corn shipments and IL was only by
quoting TO him the official figures. show
ing that while Baltimore in the year
ending Septcmber !, 1896, exported 49,
W. 'sh' bushels of corn Norfolk and
SeWport News exported IS. 300, 900 BUSH
els. and stood next to Baltimore. which
IN turn was next after New Orleans as
the leading corn shipping port of the
country. the latter exporting u Las 393
bushels.
In New York the Increase of corn
SHIPMENTS from this port has created
quite Hurry and the Produce Ex
change OF that city has been taking ac-
1--WE steps to learn the cause of the
railing off of shipments of corn from
that port. The virginain II few DAYS
ago published a statement made public
ov - exchange. In which 1t was chary-
Ell that several railways made discrimi-
nations against New York. The Pro
uuce Exchange special committee on
ran rate discrimination has forwarded
10 the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion The following extract from the an
nuai report of the Chesapeake and Ohio
railroad Company. referring to the
management of the Chesapeake and
ONO Steamship Company:
ne Che1apeake and Ohio Steamship
Companv has been operated with free
uoin from accident during the year, but
owing to the continued low rates pre-
Nailing there has been no income re-
ceiNed from the investment of this COM
panv In Its stock. The payments to the
steamship company. for which this COM
pahH Is responsible under the contract
nave been deducted from the railway
COMPANIES earnings. the amount charg-
ed off for this purpose during the fiscal
wear being S174.5l1.40. In addition TO
ihiS under the contract of the railway
companv. II was obligated to purchase
ana retire certain OF its mortgage
bonds. and the amount of such purcha So
mas hitherto been carried as an invest
mant account. but your board on re-
iiection. thought that 40 per cent of
this amount. or the percentage of the
company which was owned by foreign
stockholders, should be charged to the
earnings of this year, and they have
therefore. In addition to the regular
subsidy. charged off against earnings
S39. IBIS. 10. making altogether the sum of
s2l365O.OO which during the year has
been charged to earnings on account of
the steamship company"
The purpose of forwarding the state
ment is TO show that the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railroad Company is giving
rebates to certain shippers over its line
ana not to others such rebates being
IN favor of exporters, as S213,650 has
been charged against the earnings of
the railroad company on account of the
steamship line. whereas, the expendi
iure OF that amount was simply to pro-
vide cheap ocean accommodation for
eSporters over the Chesapeake and Ohio
railroad and was not enjoyed by local
shippers.
The Produce Exchange committee be-
heVe that they have in this statement
violation of the Interstate Commerce
Act. additional to what they have fur
nished in their amended complaint for
Wafded to the Interstate Commerce
commission on Monday last. The COM
mittee also argued that the report of
the railroad company is thorough jus
tihcation Of their policy of refusing to
comply with the request of the mana
gers or the Joint Traffic Association for
comparative statement of freight
rates current at the various ports for q
series OF years. since freight rates over
Il subsidized line could certainly not be
properly classcd with independent rates
governed by the law or supply and de-
mand. as is the condition at New York
member of the committee said: This
subSidiZinG of foreign steamers by the
Chesapeake and Ohio railroad is an out
rage on the commerce of the port of
New York. as il Is bound to divert not
only the grain. but all the products OF
the West from New York to Newport
News. 1t seems to the trade at this port
that II is not in accordance with the
Interstate Commerce Act and that IL is
matter for the Interstate Commerce
Commission to take serious cosnizance
of and apply the remedy in such a man.
ner as will prevent further transactions
of this kind"
1t Will be observed that the contention
or the Produce Exchange committee
does not extend to the diversion of the
grain trade from Atlantic to Gulf ports.
although the Joint Traffic Associat ton is
1t Is argued responsible for the mainte-
nance of rates among its members in
the face of rates decentralization In ali
other sections.
A prominent trunk line official thus
expressed himself regarding the general
grain rate situation as n hoo axy,toa