Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-10-28

termination I'm favor Of Lynchburg and
Richmond against Dauvilie and included
not only frclehts to Danville and to the
other points. but outgoing rates as well,
the latter item including especially the
rates ON tobacco 10 Louisville The spe-
cilc allegation was that higher rates
were charged from other points TO Dan
vile than were charged from those same
points 90 Lynchburg ana Richmond, not
Hithstlnding the haul TO Danville is tine
shorter. This he characterized as an UNI
due and unWarrantable preference. lie
presented table Go snow that while the
distance % Lynchburg was siXty-six
miles greater from points i'm the New
England and Middle States than 20 Dan
vile, there was a preference in favor q
Lynchburg Of II cents per hundred On
hrs--class freight, and corresponding
preference ON an other classes of freight.
a difference OF n cents was shoWl On
freights from Baltimore Of p cents on
western -four, and of l6 cents on leaf. to-
bacco TO Louisville.
REPLY FOR RAILWAYS.
Replying. Nr. Baxter admitted that the
Lyuchhurg and Richmond rates were
lower than those to Danyille, but he de-
MED that they were made under substdl-
tally similar conditions. His contention
was To- the effect that the rates TO Lynch
burg and Richmond had been made 90
meet the figures of lines which were in
existence when the Southern road enter
cd the field and he quoted numerous oid
schedules. some of them going back as
far as 1870. TO show that the rates 10
Lynchburg had from that time been low
or han those 10 Danvile. The southern
road had neither reduced nor increased
ID. htI o.
for The tariffs imposed. If the question
involved Dauville only there might be an
easy adjustment. but it involved prin-
cipic. and, therefore. the change could not
Doe conceded. This principle was the right
TO make lower rates where there was
competition than where there was not.
He also showed that on the Washington
line of the road the distance % Lynch
burg was less than that TO Danville, and
commended that this being the case, the
rate To- Lynchburg from Norfolk over the
Norfolk line must be the same as that
over the Washington line notwithsand-
Ing the fact that ON the Norfolk line The
distance 10 Danviile was less.
REJOINDER.
I'm his rejoiudcr. Mr. Conrad said that
m opposition to The showing Of old eche-
dulles. the testimony of many witnesses
made 1T plain that The Danville rates had
been increased since 1856, when the South
ern Company had acquired the lines run
ming into Danville, and he contended that
tina discrimination had been so great as
90 SAP the Hfe-blood of that city. Nor
chants from Richmond and Lynchbufg
had been able TO sell goods under the
very shadow of The houses i'm Danville,
the result being that Danville merchants
were driven cut Cf bt slness.
PARTIES TO THE SUIT
WASHINGTON. ID. c., October u
(spocialJ-The Interstate Commerce COM
mission heard the concluding argyll
ments this afternoon in the Southern
railroad freieht-rate suits number OF
lawyers. representing nearly score Of
common carriers and the city of Dan
Vile. Va. and others were present. The
arguments viii Doe continued tomorrow.
The suit was brought by the city OF
Danviue. Va. John W. Parker q Co.,
Overley e. Swanson Brothers, w. l..
Hodnett. Crews. Williamson CO..
Traylor Peterson & Orey. vs.. II. Cobb
& Co.. J.. Herman. and T.. G.. Osley
Co.. against the Southern Railway Com
pany and twenty-nine other railway and
steamship companies doing carrier
trade in the South.
The city Of Danville was represented
by Judge Aiken. of Daryiue and forms
Soicitor-Geueral Holmes Conrad, Of this
city The attorney for the Southern rail
way was Edward Baxter.