The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-15

~ ~ veionseu 10 Galveston, but did maiu-
Min tnat where cotton shipments orig-
nat'ng In Texas found In Galveston their
nearest outlet such shipments shiuld not
pe diverted from that port, In conclusion
ne asked that the defendants make oral
pieading or demur. In order that some
Issue be made before the commission,
Judge Perkins declined 10 enter de-
murrer. but denied the allegations Of
plaintiffs singular and In toto for the all
rail lines, and submitted that II plaintiffs
haye grieveance 1t is against the South
ern Pacific.
Mr.. Lovett for the Southern Pacific also
denied plaintiffs allegations, and with
reference to quotation OF rates ALLEGED
that the Southern Pacific has not neg
lected to publish its New York and do
nestle rates. So far as the published
steamship rates from Galveston to New
York are concerned, no was prepared TO
produce evidence to show that no attention
was paid to them, and that 1t was practl-
cally impossible TO find out what the ac-
tual rate was
Judge Reagan said that while the COM
mission did not care to suggest the hne
OF evidence to be offered ii would like TO
hear the testimony with regard to the
cost OF moving cotton from common points
TO New Orleans via Houston, and as 10
whether cotton had been moved out of
galveston at less than the published rate.
commissioner Mayfield suggested that evi-
dence with regard to divisions OF the true
rate would prove acceptable.
Judge Stedman OF the International and
Great Northern declared that plaintiffs were
not stating their case in AIN open, manly
way The Galveston ship brokers and the
Chamber OF Commerce were neither pro-
ducers nor consumers OF cotton, hence were
not concerned in a reduction of rates. All
they were after was the abolition of the
I'M II -
were attempting to conceal their purpose.
and boodwtnk the commission. Had the
case been fairly stated Houston would have
been fully represented at this meeting, as
IL was directly interested and entitled TO a
hearing. Galveston wanted monopoly OF
the cotton business OF Texas, which never
would, could, or should hanpeu. as it was
TO the shippers interest TO have u multi
plicity OF outlets. He could not subscribe
TO the theory that an emergency exists.
Thero would be an eternal disturbance in
rates as long as ships sailed the ocean. They
We're not controlled nv law. Their repre-
sentatives can meet ut any time and make
agreements, Irrespective of the law and in
defiance of commissions. vet said repre-
sentatives were here insisting that tho
railways be called to time for attempting to
protect themselves against them. while
they are as free as air to disturb rates
whenever they see fit.
MIR. Moller denied claiming that Calves
ton is entitled to a monopoly of the Texas
cotton business The Texas ports. of which
Galveston Is the principal one, should do
the Texas cotton business was that he
meant to say. Cotton should 80 out
through the nearest shipping points was
his contention. Az the conclusion of his
remarks Mr.. Moller was nut on the stand
and sworn, and taking ND the questions
suggested by the commission upon which il
would like to have testimony, stated that
he was unable to give any information with
regard to the divisions in effect on utter
state business, and asked that the general
freight agents of the different lines he
required to produce their division sheets.
Process was issued in compliance with this
request. As to the cost of moving cotton
from common points to New Orleans via
Houston, he could not say. not being A rail-
road man. AS to whether cotton haa nov
cd out of Galveston at less than published
rabes, he testified that railroad cotton has
moved out to the extent nf TO 2 cents for
insurance differentials Further than this
Moller testified that the Southern Pacific
had In November last made 4 rate of $106.
Houston to Liverpool. when said rate via
Galveston was s1l0, In answer to Judge
Perkins he testified that the rate on rail-
road cotton had varied from 30 To 50 cents
during the past season out of Galveston.
He denied that tho Maritime association
has any control over rates. Each ship bro-
ker WAS for himself insofar as rates are
concerned. He admitted that ship brokers
sometimes gave rebates 10 get business. Did
not think 1t was good thing. however, for
railroad agents to be uncontrolled because
they give rebates when there Is no COM
mission n look after them II IL impos-
sble to get reliability IN steamship iates
out of Galveston, because the railroads VIII
not stick to them. He testified that the
Galveston shin brokers had not broken the
agreement they entered into With the rail
llres last fall. but that II had been broken
AT the end OF fourteen DAYS by The Southern
Pacific. lie did not know that shippers had
handled interior cotton on the SPOT Calves
ton rate which, no more Than the Houston
rate was not controlled sbv the railroads.
He could not say what Others might have
done In this respect, Galveston is cheaper
port than New orleans. hence shio owners
take no account Of its greater distance from
Liverpool In making rates as compared
with New Orleans. They might have on
certain occasions quoted a St.6i rate from
Houston to Liverpool, but IL was on LEGAL
and not railroad cotton Lower rates were
quoted BY steamships on Houston and Cal
weston than on interior cotton, because "
was better compressed at those points than
in the interior and the ships prefer TO
handle 1t. He denied that any foreign cot
ton had moved on the IL l-2-cent rate made
to New York by the Mallory line. or that
said rate WINS made 10 ne lDpilfn 10 Liver
pool cotton. lie favored the lowering OF the
rate TO Galveston 10 "a cents. because tho
lower the rate the more cotton would move
by the short line. He favored lowering the
rate to such an extent that New orleans
and Atlantic port lines can not meet H.
Replying TO Mr.. Lovett, Mr., Moller ala
not deny that last November he had quoted
a "A cent rate 10 Houston men, giving them
twenty days In which TO I'll contracts He
denied that the Insurance rate was TIE
same for the same class OF vessels out OF
Galveston as out OF New Orleans. The
New Orleans people have more innuenee
with the underwriters than have the Gal
weston people and larger percentage or
the cotton going through Galveston IL dl-
Iiyered in Liverpool in a country damage
condition than OF the cotton going through
New Orleans, he explained.
At this stage OF the proceedings Mr. Low
ett asked that the Galveston ship BROKERS
be summoned to produce their books be-
fore the commission, and process was Is
sued accordingly, 80,
In reply to Judge Stedman. Mr.. Moiier
said that Texas ports are entitled TO an
advantage over New orleans by virtue OF
their rearness TO the cotton fields. In re.
Div 10 Commissioner Mayfield he admit,