The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-24
HEARING IN RATE CASE
ERIC OLSON'S CHARGE AGAINST
THE RAILROADS OF
THE STATE
MADE AT MANKATO HEARING
Business Men of Southwestern Min
nesOta Appear Before Railway
Commission to Ask Changes
in Freight Tariffs

Yesterdays hearing in the merchandise
rate case before the railroad commission
developed considerable warmth in an at
tempt to freeze out Mankato representa-
tives, who appeared to protest against
apparent rate discrimination and the ses-
sion, which occupied the morning and
the afternoon, was of considerable in
terest.
The hearing was called for the pur-
pose Of determining the reasonableness Of
differences between terminal and dis
tance tariffs in effect in the state,
through which inferior towns are dis
criminated against. The main defense of
the railroad representatives was the
increased cost of transportation, and
charges of disproportionate through
rates were met with the argu-
ment that interstate rates controlled
these conditions in Minnesota. The rail-
roads of the state were represented by
the following officials:
Chicago Great Western-F. B. Kellogg,
attorney; p. c. Stohr, traffic manager.
Great Northern Railway-M D. Grover,
solicitor.
Northern Pacific Railway-C. w. Bum.
Omaha-Thomas Wilson. attorney; Jas.
T. Clark, vice president; H. M. Pearce,
freight agent.
Chicago & North Western Railway
Marvin Hughitt Jr, traffic manager.
Minneapolis & st. Louis-W. M. Hop
kins, freight agent.
Attorney for Commission-H w. Childs.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul Railway
j. II. Hiland, traffic manager; e. D.
Sewall, assistant general freight agent.
A charge against the financial stand
ing of Minnesota roads was made by
Eric Olson Of Sherburn, who in present
ing a complaint against freight rates
in his section, created quite a breeze.
The former state senator then quoted
from reports of an investigation into
freight and passenger earnings and the
condition of railroads In the state, made
by the senate when he was member.
Mr.. Olson then took up the matter of
rates and urged the adoption of meas
ures to eliminate the differences between
terminal and distance tariffs.
F. M Currier, a candy manufacturer,
and A. Peterson, a wholesale grocer from
Mankato, appeared to protest against the
in rates from the cities. Mr.. Curriers'
testimony showed that on through hauls
from the east, business was handled
from Duluth to the cities and charged
rate slightly more than four cents. From
the cities to Mankato, little more than
half the distance, the rate charged
amounted to 12 cents.
From these figures it is possible to
see that we are Disseminated against
and are unable tC compete with Twin
City firms in our own immediate terri
tory. We do not suggest manner in
which this palpable injustice can be
remedied, but only wish to protest against
the present rates. We are charged the
sum of the locals on through business,
ard are unable to meet successfully the
outside competition. Our contention is
for through rates less than the sums of
the locals, and the abolition of the charge
of full local rates on through business
coming through the cities"
Mr. Patterson followed with rate fig
ures in substantiation of the claims Of
Mr. Currier An attack was Immediately
made by Marvin Hughitt, Jr., traffic
manager of the Northwestern, on the
testimony introduced, and the other Off
cials Joined in with arguments for the
purpose of crushing the effect of the
Mankato testimony. F. M. Currier re-
sponded with spirit and considerable
warmth developed. Mr.. Hughitt finally
withdrew from the argument.
The general trend of the morning testi-
mony was technical. The railroad Off
cials present defended the present rates
with arguments tending to show that the
cost of handling traffic between inter-
mediate stations was greater than hand
ling business out of terminals. The argu-
ment against the charge of the sum of
local rates on through business was de-
Tended on the ground that through rates
are made in the East For this reason
the officials were agreed that Minnesota
rates could not be changed to cores
pond with fluctuations of rates over
which they had no control. On account
of the higher cost of transportation be-
tween intermediate stations, accounted
for by the fact that changes of crews
are necessary in taking care of the busi-
ness and that the transfer Of freight
is expensive the railroad representatives
testified that they were justified in MAX
ing a differential in favor of terminal
shippers and charging higher rates in
distance tariffs.
The hearing occupied the entire day
and at it's conclusion, the case was taken
under advisement by the commissioners.