The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-09-17

I chow that Galveston was getting the worst
| OF the deal In reply to a question from
rate from Houston TO Galveston, the wit
| ness admitted that the rate was applied
only on through shipments and not Local
| rates AS far as the witness knew, Scent
rate was applied on all cotton moving TO
| Galveston from Houston.
| AS no local rate was applied, Judge Per
! kins asked the witness how he knew that
! the 6.cent rate was applied instead OF
/ cents. He said the cotton was billed To
shipside and that he was positive OF that
| fact.
Mr Becker OF the Houston bureau asked
| the witness why the Scent rate was put
| IN In the tirat place, and he replied that II
was brought about by the stupidity of some
| railroad man, ana the question was asked
/ tips witness II he was not responsible for
| IL. He said he was nor
| As to free drayage, the witness said that
cotton shipment from an Interior point
/ TO a foreign destination was stopped at
! Houston to be pressed, and then shipped TO
| Galveston. At galveston the free drayage
| was not allowed, as 1t was always stopped
| at Houston.
Mr. Andrews asked the witness Z the
| comprc fsing Of cotton at any Interior point
! did not bring about the same conditions
| as those existing at Houston, aud not at
| Galveston. The witness admitted that the
| case was parallel, but that a local rate
| applied irstead OF the differential.
| The witness then compared the movement
1 OF cotton TO grain shipments, saying that
| he could see no reason why the cotton
] Npuiu NOT ne brought 10 SnlpSlQe TOT "
! cents per 100 pounds lie said the switch
! ing charges In lieu of the drayagC charges
! IN Galveston amount approximately to il
! cents per bale all congresses being reached
! by the tracks Of the railroad companies
| On int cotton the switching Is absorbed,
! but not on straight cotton The compress
| owner Is compelled to pay storage charges
| of p cents per bale In Galveston because
| the railroads have no storage sheds, while
| ut Houston the charge Is only 3 cents.
! The witness admitted that there were cot
| ton yards In Houston not reached by the
! railroads, and that the owner Of the cot
! ton paid the drayage which ms a result
| oqualized the Galveston conditions. MIR.
| johnson stated that the Houston compress
| men absorb the charges In three instances
while the Galveston compress absorbs it
! In only one instance, The witness again
admitted that In Galveston the drnyage
| charge IS pHd by the cotton owner owing
TO conditions, and that he was not familiar
| with all the facts.
Commissioner Mayheld called attention TO
| the fact that the railroads did not pay the
| drnynge as they were prohibited from do
ing so. This remark showed that the con-
troversy was on hypothetical order. and
Judge Perkins asked tho witness regard
Ing the shipment Of cotton from interior
points destined to Galveston via Hearne
md Houston II there would be any nddi
tional storage charge over the two places
ana the witness replied that there would
be none
Judge Freeman then asked the witness
a few questions and brought out the point
that cotton consigned to foreign ports went
to Galveston on local rates. Regarding the
- cents per bale movements at Galveston
from compress To shipsde the witness said,
| In enumcrating the various charges lead
ing up TO the - cents, he put In cents
FOR snmpling after the cotton had been
compressed and concentrated for shipping.
Mr. freeman asked him II he thought IL
was justice for the railroads TO pay for
the privilege Of n cotton man living In Cat
weston, and paying for something he gets
over the advantages offered by Houston.
Judge Freeman said that he was not a
houston man, but that he believed that
Houston would back him up In the asser
tion thar II the gulf was moved up to Hous-
Il ton, the Houston cotton men would absorb
all the charges and Galveston also.
Mr. Harris remarked that that Is why
they We're before the commission, 10 keep
from being absorbed,
Judge freeman said you had better
hustle and get on your chunk q butter"
Mr. Harris replied that they were hus-
Ting, and not making stump speeches
Mr Johnston said that the Texas ana
Pacific should treat Galveston as It does
New Orleans, and Il did Galveston would
not object
Judge Freeman replied that the Texas
and Pacific was allowed a 10ccnt diner
entail into New Orleans. ana besides the
shipments were export.
Mr.. Johnston admitted that cotton Mt
Galveston could be handled from the rail-
roads direct TO the shipSide and Is handled
that way every day but that he wanted
local cotton dealers TO build up the town,
ana a business for themselves Just the same
as Houston has done.
Judge Freeman then asked the witness
n he wanted The railroads 20 pay for this
privilege In order to allow Galveston to
look az the cotton. Admitting that II was
a natural port, he wanted cotton handled
| locally, the same as at Houston. The Wit
ness stated that II the congresses were
located on the wharves at Galveston II
would not eliminate the drayage charge MS
the location Of the piers brought about the
uuncnlty; lie said II Galveston had the
same switching facilities as Houston and
the railroads would perform the same serv-
Ice there would be no kick,
Judge Perkins stated that II was his
opinion that the people Of Galveston were
railroads
with Mr.. Johnston stlu on the stand the
commission recessed for dinner.
Upon reconvening Mr. Harris announced
that Galveston would rest its side OF case.
HousToN's SIDE OF 1T
Houston placed w o. Ansley ON the
stand, the examination belng conducted by
Frank Andrews. AS to free storage. the
witness said that while he was doing busi.
ness IN Galveston ne enjoyed free stor.
age privilege which did not prevail I'm
Houston, While In Galveston he never
paid drayage, as the cotton was taken al.
rect to shlpside He said that cotton ship.
ped to Houston could be shipped out 10
other points, but conditions are the re.
verse In Galveston, as there is only one
way to ship aud this by the port At
times there are no ships at Galveston and
cotton is then shipped to New orleans. He
said that It was more expensive TO handle
cotton In Galveston than Houston, as the
COMPRISING is higher
lie was crOss-examined by Mr.. Harris,
who brought out the point that the yards
In Houston wereehased from the Katy aud
international and Great Northern He
SUD the CHASING Of cotton at Galveston
was more expensive than at Houston the
price being u cents against Houston's 10
cents lie said that free storage was al
lowed at Galveston all the time. oven n
the fact was denied Cotton stored In
definitely at Houston demands storage
charges,
y. H. Helen, a cotton man Of Houston
who formerly resided In Galveston was nut
on the stand. He knew Of no storage