Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-12-23


commerce commission, called on ac-
count of complaints made by shippers
against the proposed new classification
of freight by railroads operating under
the official classification, was re-
sumed to-day.
By agreement, Mr.. Frank Harriet,
general traffic manager of the Erie
railroad, and a member of the official
classification committee" went on the
witness stand to testify as to the new
classification. He reiterated Mr.. GilPs
statement of yesterday that the new
classification was adopted because the
railroads absolutely needed the in
creased revenues. On many car load
rates no advance, it was felt by the
committee, could be made, but it was
felt that on short hauls the less than
car load lots could afford to pay added
rates. This agreement would enable
shippers to take advantage of car load
rates to a general distributing point,
the railroads there getting some adj
vantage from added rates on the short
hauls from distributing points. The
classification committee did not con-
slider the market prices of articles on
which the classification was raised. Mr..
Harriott said the controlling reason in
raising the classification was the evil
dent necessity for more revenue, and
this was deemed the best way to get it.
So far as was practicable, the commit
tee and the railroads were ready and
anxious to remedy so far as possible,
any injustices that might exist in the
classification. He said it would be nee
essary for the sixty odd roads using
The Official Classification
to follow not only the classification but
also to maintain the existing commod-
ity rates in order to obtain additional
revenues.
Inquiries developed the admission by
Mr.. Harriott that on the average, mis-
cellaneous cars carrying articles paying
less than car load rates were being
more heavily loaded now than hereto
fore, and therefore the earnings on that
class of traffic were greater.
1t developed at this point that at a
meeting of the shippers and those rep
resenting their interest, Former Attor-
ney General Of Ohio F. S. Monnett,
Hon. ]. H. Bromwell and Mr.. Mortimer
Matthews, of Cincinnati, had been ap-
pointed to present the committee the
action of the shippers. Mr.. Monnett
presented a set of resolutions adopted
by the commercial interests directing
attention to testimony adduced at the
present hearing, showing, it was main
tanned, discrepancies by the railroads
against the small shippers in favor of
the large shippers, and to the fact that
the railroads had declined to extend
the time for the new classification to go
into effect. These were supplemented
by a petition by a large majority Of
the shippers in attendance upon the
hearing, asking that the committee lay
the testimony before the Attorney Gen
eral of the United States, with a view
to have him bring action against the
railroads to prevent the new classical
ton from becoming effective on Janu-
airy /, 1900.
The Petition of the Shippers.
"The undersigned shippers and rep
resentatives of various shipping inter-
ests would respectfully and respectively
petition your honorable body in view
of the testimony disclosed at the ses-
sion held in the city, December 81, on
the matter of changes in freight CLASH
fication and advances in freight rates
by carriers using the official classified
ton, request that such testimony be
laid before his honor, the Attorney
General of the United States, for the
purpose of informing him of the neces-
sity of taking legal action by injunc-
ton or otherwise in the premises.
"ln view of the principles laid down
in Thurber VS.. Railroad Company,
March u, 1890, and in view of the de-
cision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the trans-Missouri
case, We think the evidence will war
rant such proceedings, as the action of
said official classification committee is
clearly in violation of the federal stat
ute known as the Sherman antitrust
act"
For some time the attorneys of the
shippers argued in favor of the COM
mission taking the suggested action,
Chairman Knapp, of the committee
maintaining that the commission had
no more authority to make recon-
mendations to the attorney general
than had representatives of the ship
pers.
The commission had no objection to
furnish to the Attorney General at the
suggestion of the shipping interests, a
transcript of the evidence adduced at
the hearing, together with the petition
of the shippers for action
Under the Antitrust Law.
The attorneys for the shippers offer
ed to furnish testimony showing that