The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-30

eAso OiAy ~ SClilS udu ludlly D6GI pdlQ
| after the collection Of the difference
| in the form of rebate. Here the wit
ness apparently admitted that in the
| case of prepayment of freight on
| the basis of 80 cents, the rebate Of 4
cents was collected by the shipper.
While 1T was charged up to the con-
| signee, and the latter received no cred
it for the difference.
| PilIsbury Washburn Company.
E. M Fairchild, of the Plllsbury-
| Washburn company, was recalled. He
was asked by Mr.. Day whether, di-
| rectly or indirectly, any concessions
were made to that concern reducing
the rates of transportation below the
| published rates. He replied that he
| did not himself know of any such in
stance. and did not know Of anyone
| who did know of any such transac-
| tons.
Has there ever been any traffic car
| ried for your company on which a re-
| fund has been made so that the rate
| has been reduced below that mention
| ed in the invoice bills?"
NO, sir, not to my knowledge"
DO you know whether you house
has ever made any claim against
railroad company or transportation
line for refunding of the difference
between the rate at which traffic was
billed and that for which it was act
ually carried?"
mo, SIR"
Have you had any conversation
with Mr.. Pillsbury as to what you
should testify to on this occasion?"
NO sir. l have talked with him. He
knew l was subpoenaed; but there was
nothing said as to what 1 should testi-
fly to-"
The witness said he had had no con-
versation with Mr.. Course on the sub
Ject He had, however, talked with
Mr.. Norris, but could give no state
ment as to what was said between
them. That was on the day the sub
poena was served.
Wisconsin Central Man.
George Huey,. the freight agent of
the Wisconsin Central at Minneapolis,
was the next witness. He said he had
never received commissions from any
source for securing traffic No state
ments had ever been presented to him
for rebates. He had never paid any
money out on this account to the best
of his knowledge. Claims for over
charges were being paid every day.
There were chiefly on account Of &C
cldental errors on the part of bill
clerks. He had never quoted to millers
any rate below the published tariff. He
had not secured shipments Of flour at
any rate below the regular tariff rate
prior to Jan. Is, 1898, and had made no
agreement with any transportation line
for shrinkage. on a division, so that his
company would receive less than the
ten cents proportiOnate rate. He knew
OF no concession prior to the date men
toned and there was not to his knowl-
edge any allowance for labor in connec-
ton with the, loading of cars. He had
no knowledge of the Introduction of
any lower rate, and no idea that his
line was contributing to the cost Of
loading Of the products of the mills
Neither did he know Of any concession
on account of the pressing into a car
load of an amount beyond the minimum
weight.
In response to query he said he was
ready to go on record as saying that
neither directly nor indirectly was he
aware of payments or refunding where
by the cost of transportation was low
cred below the published rate.
c. F. Hubbard, travelling freight
agent of the st. Paul & Duluth, was
called and sworn, but few questions
put by Mr.. Day showed that he was
possessed of no knowledge of the kind
sought, and he was promptly allowed
to retire.
Nj. & st. L. Freight Agent.
Then came General Freight Agent
Hopkins, Of the Minneapolis & ST.
Louis. He said in the first place that
his road only received about per cent
of the flour traffic. He declared that
he had no knowledge of the contribu-
ton of money or other consideration
of value to any intermediate line with
view to influencing traffic; neither
did he know of any payment on ac-
count OF labor or any thing else asso-
ciated with the loading of freight on
cars by shippers. He was asked wheth-
er he knew Of any instance in which
traffic was billed out at a higher rate
and statement subsequently present
ed as a basis for the refunding of a
portion of the amount paid. He replied
that he knew of no such instance. Then
Mr.. Day asked him if he had any sus-
picions that such methods We're pur-
sued by his company. Mr.. Hopkins
promptly replied:
suspicious. I have no information
which would lead me to believe that
such is the case"
You have no reason to believe that
traffic has been billed at the published
rate, and that rate collected and that
afterward on any device a portion, say
one, three or four cents per hundred
ler?"
mo, sir, have not
The witness here explained that there
are certain terminal transfer switching
charges absorbed by his line, among
others. In some instances these amount
to 50 and $3.50 per car, and in these
cases there is an equalization charge Of
SO cents made. These charges are not
included in the tariff rates submitted
to the Interstate commerce commission.
SOo's Representatives.
General Freight Agent W. L. Martin,
of the 800 Line" was a disappointing
witness in some respects. Not that he
failed to be the right man for tapping
purposes, but that he had so recently
shifted his responsibilities to other
shoulders, and the commission had not
called upon the very men who might
have proved to be the true sources of
information.
He said no statements of the class
referred to had been submitted to him.
There is a class, he said, relating to
the switching Of cars. Amounts are
refunded to millers representing the eX-
cess of charges made on that line over
those on other lines on this account.
This is regarded as an equalization.
The impression Of the witness was
that in no case had the allowance been
more than $3.50 in order to make the
expense to the shipper by that line the
same as that by other lines.
There has been no filing Of switch
ing charges with the interstate COM