The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-10-02

ferred to was brought before the COM
| mission.
| so that 1t Is seen that the startling dis
closures. made by one newspaper at least.
| of the great wrong which John II. Rea-
| gan had done to the people who have SO
long honored him. OF refusing TO subject o
monster corporation to the rules OF the
commission has not ecintilla of truth
| TO rest on. and that all OF its painful ex-
| CARNATIONS on this subject are the idle
| vaporings of some one who had no real
| information on the subject about which
he was writing"
About the charge that / voted against.
| putting express companies under the con-
| troll OF the commission, have this to say.
| That the State law subjects the express
| companies OF the State 10 the jurisdiction
| of the railroad commission: that NIL the
members Of the commission. myself in
| cluded, believed express rates were too
| high, and that some reduction in them
| ought to be made. schedule OF rates
| was prepared, which was sanctioned by u
| majority Of the commission. l did not
| approve those rates because | regarded
| them too low, and as unjust to the express
companies. When this schedule of rates
| was made public the managers OF the ex-
press companies requested to be heard in
| relation to them. and were accorded that
| privilege. Following that hearing the
| commission, without dissent from anv of
the schedule Of rates, thus Giving their
| sonction to my objection to 1t. SO that II
| l was wrong in opposing IL my brother
commissioners must have been equally
| wrong In revokipg II.
subsequently the commission prepared
| and put in effect a second schedule Of re-
| duced rates VI express charges. This
| also believed to be too low and unjust to
| the express companies, and 1t did not re.
| ceive my approval. AS to this schedule all
VIII now say is that the express COM
panies have instituted suit to have these
rates annulled, and have obtained an in
| junction from the court prohibiting the
| enforcement of them until the question Of
| their justice can be heard. Pending this
| litigation j deem 1t improper for me to
| enter into any further discussion Of this
| question. While l believe the express
| rates are too high and that they ought to
| be reduced, i think 1t necessary to obey
| the letter and spirit OF our law by making
such rates reasonable and Just alike to the
| shippers and the carriers. and / have not.
and Will not. sanction any rates for either
| express companies or for railroad COM
panies. which do not. In my judgment.
| meet this necessary requirement.
In this connection think 1t proper for
me to say that many people fail to realize
tnat there Is very material difference
| between the rates and charges of express
| companies and those OF railroad companies
the railroads receive their freight at their
depots, and deliver 1t at their depots. They
are mt no expense In bringing merchandise
to their depots. and in delivering It from
their depots to the houses or places of
business OF conslgnees. While or the other
hand express companies have to pay on
the average at least one-half OF their earn
ings to the railroads for CARRYING their
packages. Then they have to mslntain
their separate Offices and clerks their
wagons and teams and receive packages
from the houses OF business places OF con-
signors, and to delivsr them to the houses
or places OF business OF consignees. From
this II is seen that these charges In order
to enable them to do business and TO ac-
commodate the public, must be greatly
higher. perhaps double as much as rail-
road rates. The failure to understand this
no doubt gives rise to great deal OF COM
paint against express companies.
With regard 10 the charge that voted
against a reduction OF the tarlff on cotton
Do cents per bale. must say that I am
not aware that any such vote was ever
taken, The reduction OF cents per 100
pounds in tho maximum rate on cotton,
and the greater reduction on some OF the
distances not receiving the maximum rate.
was sanctioned and agreed to by all OF
the commissioners. as shown by the record
III was wrong In agreeing to a reduction
Of rs cents In the maximum rate on a 500
pound bale OF cotton. instead OF approving
reduction OF 80 cents per bale then the
wrong must attach alike to each OF my
brother commissioners. for all sanctioned
what was done in this respect
ut should be said In this connection that
this was a second reduction OF the rates ON
cotton made by the commission, below the
rates which existed, as made by the rail-
roads, before the commission made rates
In our tariff on cotton rates. effective Sep
TENDER /. 1885, we reduced the rate on
cotton % cents per bale OF 500 pounds. The
reduction recently made was still furth-
tier reduction OF over rs cents on the 800
pound bale. This was as great reduction,
In view OF the net receipts OF the railroads,
as we thought 1t would be safe TO make. II
Is often charged by those who seek reduc-
tions of rates that the freight rates as
made by the commission are higher than
they were as made by the railroads before
the commission was organized. The COM
mission has made some reduction on near
iy every commodity carried by the rail-
roads. And In addition to the reductions
in commodity rates. by reference to pages
TO II OF our fourth annual report, In
making our rates upon classified merchan-
disc. which covers thousands OF Items. in
deed the body OF the commerce carried. II
will be seen that We made reductions In
the freight rates OF not less than 9S per
cent Of those items, In the reductions on
cotton alone for four seasons under thess
tariffs there has been . saving to the
people Of over 81, 600 900 and 4 Ike reduc-