The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-10-22
G r A B | T

purchase of the Burlington.
| A. The reduction amounted to 10 or
10 per cent; the reduction amounted on
grain to practically 10 per cent. almost
exactly 10 per cent, as nearly as 1t cou!d
| be made, in the West, and to SUBSTANTIAL
| ly the same in the East while the reduc.
| ton of merchandise varied In dlHerent
| localities, and on the whole was about 10
| per cent on merchandise.
| Grain Rates Reduced.
| O. This reduction Of 10 per cent that
| was made on grain, from what points to
points did that ne app pr the
| railways to the terminal points, where the
| grain moved to market.
Q. Do you mean to say that from all
the points where grain was raised on the
| Great Northern, to the Twin Cities, the
rate was reduced 10 per cent?
| A. Nearly that and some places more
O. And on the Northern Pacific like
wise?
A. I am more familiar with the rates on
the Great Northern, but 1 think that an
examination of the tariffs will show that
it was substantially the same on the
| Northern Pacific.
| Q. The change Of classification, you
| may recall, Mr.. Hill, on the 1st Of jan
| uary, 1900. occasioned a very great deal
| Of discussion throughout the United
States; protests were filed with the inter-
garding the official classification that ap-
piled east Of the Mississippi river. AT
that time there was a classification, a
new classification, went into effect ap-
plying upon the roads west of the Mlssis-
sippi river, the Burlington and the Great
Northern sd1,, and md the Morthern Pacific. DO
A. / do not. / know there was a
great deal of discussion; remember there
has been from time to time very con.
| classification and attempts to call for a
uniform classification throughout the
country. I never could understand any
reason for it, I have seen the discussion
and I have seen arguments in favor Of
1t, but the conditions
@. 1 am not referring to the question
| Of uniform classification.
A. I was answering this in regard to
| the discussion" as I understood your
question.
| Q. No not the uniform classification
1t was the complaint of manufacturers
and shippers that by reason of this clas-
stfcation that went into effect on the lst
Of January, 1900, in the territory of the
Great Northern road and the Burlington
| and the Northern Pacific, the rates were
advanced from is to 80 per cent on more
than $50 articles of general merchandise
A do not, and don't think that it
applied in any such way. Most Of that
business is carried under commodity
| rates.
@. I am trying to ascertain what you
| covered by your general statement when
| you said rates had been reduced 10 per
cent I am endeavoring to ascertain
whether rates were reduced on these
necessaries of life.
Reduction a Business Affair.
A. Rates were reduced on the bust
ness of the railway. the business carried
| by the railway and the reduction can be
substantiated more readily by the tariffs
| themselves than by any other means.
than 10 per cent, and some cases not so
much. The rate, however. would aver
age about 10 pei, cent. Then the mer-
! chandise rate, I think, would average Id
per cent of the existing rates.
| @. But you can't give the articles
| what articles of merchand1se-the re-
| duction was made upon?
A. No, sir; could not. The figures In
my mind came from my general knowl-
edge as to the effect upon the revenues
of the company. and so on, and in dis
oussing the matter with the accounting
department and the traffic officers, that
was the effect of the reduction.
| Q. You only state generally that the
rate was reduced on some articles, but
| you cannot state what they were, or the
| number?
A. have stated, and tried to-, 49,.
| @. You stated grain; l recall that.
! Now, on what others?
| A. On merchandise.
Q. What do you mean by merchandise?
| A. On all that comes under the class
| of merchandise. Now. lumber Is not
| usually called merchandise, for it is car
] ried in a classification by itself, and SO Is
pig iron, SO is coal, 50 Is Salt.
Rates Lower Than In the East.
@. Did YOU make reduction on those?
! A, I think not. I think those rates are
| lower here than they are in most OF the
states in the East, where th + Iney ee cafbs
density Of traffic. think the coal rae
here is lower than it is on the Reading
road, for instance, or on the Lac OK
o. There has been very bitter COM
| plaint in the East that the rate on coal
on those roads is abnormally high.
| A. have often wondered why you
ulation Of these matters did not take 1t
up and help the public. Laughter3
| @. Your astute counsel have mao de-
termined that question, believe. of the
reasonableness of rates or the amount of
rate was not question that the public
authorities could deal with. That would
have to be left to the individual! suitor.
that from the supreme court. Now, Mr..
! Hill. do you know what your gross earn.
! ings were per ton per mile OF traffic last
| year? oo., - yo
g. 3: TIE 4esyy year ending the SUN u 'DAS'
| A. 1853 Of a cent. .
earnings of the roads Of the United States
| per ton per mile was in that same year?
A. I have not seen the figures up to
'n g 0 It was 72s. Yours was what7
| q. What was your for the year ending
A, I could not recall it. 1t would be
| something higher; $3.50 and something,
| should think. 49,
O., Do you know "hat II was oh TIC
The Northern Pacific would be high
err. probably in the neighborhood of .9OO
Q. Do you know what 1t was Oh the
MI Grover-.9SS.
| A think the Atchison would be near
cent know LOCKED fand this ms reporf Of
the Rock Island; I found that was l'o4
| for the year just closed. ,-
O. I examined the report OF PIN the IN int Ter
tical report for the years l9oo ana l9ol;
| which is made on the sworn returns OF
your own road and Of the other r 70 as &C, Oh
| ings for those two years were somewhat
| lower than yours, which brings me to ask
YOU to explain wherein the Atkinson rates
| are higher than your rates. You SAID
| Yesterday that if you could have the same
| rate on your road that the Atch1son gets
on it's that your earnings would De some
! thing over five millions in excess OF Wnas
! thew now are, on the same quantity OF
| traffic carried. 80 +z
| carried one mile by our road and multiply
if by the average rate of the .Atchison l
| think YOU will find that it will increase
our income about s5,000,OOO..
| O. But you didn't mean to have 1t I'M
| oerstood that the rates of transportation
o oni 1trenscontinental traffic are higher on
t fIn Atchison than they are on the Great
| Northern or Northern racine! NIL,
instance. the rate on lumber from the
| Pacific coast to Omaha or to Kansas City,
| I know that rate is higher than the rate
%. Yes but you say they don't carry
| any of that lumber
| 4. They don't carry lumber from Puget
| Sound. but lumber does come from Ore
SOn 10 eli the intermediate country.
@. Does the Atchison participate in
that traffic?
i @ No, thought not These rates that
! We're nut into reductions that you spoke