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

which was seldom used. Hc said that cot
ton was loaded on bnrges from the com
presses. Their location on the DNyvu
ininiuilzcB the charges and lessons the tA-
penses Of handling the cotton. COTTON
formerly went to 81. Louis on account OF
| our high churges, but we reduced tne
charges and are keeping the cotton IN
Texas. Galveston could do the same thing
and by locating their congresses on the
water front the drayage charges Wonid pe
wiped out and the demands OF Galveston
would not be so unreasonable. Houston
| spent money TO get its congresses near the
water ana Galveston should do the same
lhing Instead 81 asking the commission TO
cont to their relief He said that he
never had any free storage privileges az
Houston. I'VE do not store cotton free.
| lie said that Houston's advantages were
~ tne lact that they could ship to otner
| points besides Galveston, rs some ship
ments Y ent by Sabine Pass ana Port Ar
thur. He said that about one third OF his
cotton went by barge TO Galveston. Also
that ne had no objection 20 Galveston hay-
ing the came privileges as Houston, even
4 10 wlping out the switching charges. He
| sald that II Galveston would spend its
une Keeping down conditions Instead II
/ coming 70 the railroad commission the town
| Monld be better on. In answer 60 ques'
uoh regarding the compress at Harrisburg.
/ ne sun that the Harrisburg concern was
Rot In fact n compress as Il could attend
| to the cotton crop OF Harris county. Hous-
| ton don't object TO Galveston getting all 1t
| gan, out Galveston should not be ahashed
pecause Houston Is more conveniently To-
| GATED. Houston would have no objection
! 70 the commission putting n higher rate on
| shipments to Harrisburg and Clinton
Judge Perkins developed from the witness
thHt the big grain elevators at Galveston
/ were on the wharf TO obviate drayage
! charges by hauling the grain from the cen
| ter OF the Island to the shlpsidc, md that
Galveston congresses should be located like
| the gram elevators.
! II. w. Garrow, an expert cotton shipper
OF Houston, took the stand and said that
! he never had any free storage at Houston.
| He said the presses at Clinton and Harris
/ burg were round bale concerns. He said
| that he shipped cotton all over the world,
many times via New Orleans, and that the
/ insurance rate was the same from Houston
! 10 either Galveston or New Orleans. He
said that II the railroads did not absorb
! the switching charges he would ship all OF
! bis cotton by barge.
NJ. r. Andrews, n cotton man OF Houston,
| stated that ne conducted a large export
! business and that his compress was located
/ on the bayou In order to meet competition.
| This was done Mt large expense and he
! could move cotton at times quicker by
| barge than by rail, as the hitter was UNI
! certain. He never had any free storage
| privileges In Houston. Under cross-ex-
| animation he said the rail cotton was de-
! layed In the Houston yarus, due to Call
| fornla freight.
James Adair next took the stand and bis
| testimony was about the snme as other
! f. o. Becker OF the Houston freight
| bureau testified that he was formerly in
| business st Galveston and that storage was
/ never charged and that he knew OF no free
| storage In Houston.
! r. A. Taylor, cotton man for twenty
! FIVE years In Houston, stated that cotton
! was handled in his yards by dray to press.
! Here MIR. Harris stated that he would ac-
| cept the statements of the Houston wit
! nesses as being true and 1t was useless 70
rehash former testimony as the commits
sion heard 1t all during their recent visit,
! Houston rested its case and Assistant
! General Freight Agent Noel of the Katy
was placed on the stand In rebuttal ana
| was asked about the eQuIpmcnt at the Two
| places He said that Houston was more
! favorable # the cotton was unloaded on the
! Katy platform, but that 1t was more pront-
| able to haul the cotton to Galveston AZ,
! tornny Andrews suggested that IL would
| sti be more profitable to maui shipments
| TO ST. Louis.
General Freight Agent Goodwin stated
| that more service was required at Houston
| and that Galveston was just as much tue
! logical point as Houston. He said the
| bayou had nothing to do with the absotp
| tion OF the switching charges, as that was
| brought about by rail competition. lie said
! there as no good reason why the swltchlng
| charges should be absorbed by the roads;
| Conditions must be met as they arise, and
there are no conditions Mt Galveston like
those at Houston.
would he the effect Of reducing the differ
| entail The witness answered by saying
| that the question WAS not before the com
| mission. BY reduction OF the tariff 3
| cents It would benefit the Santa re en-
! cotton shipments 70 Galveston, hut not the
Traffic Manager Jones testified as to the
! free storage at clinton, saying that the
! press was controlled by the American Cot
! ION company and did not know of free
! storage charges being In existence. He
| said that switching charges out were alb
| snrhed on account Of the bayon. The Wit
| ness said the rate to virginia Point could
| he fixed NJ "a cents and the Galveston rep
resentatlves said that would suit them, as
! they could 10 the rest.
General Freight Agent Turner or the In
| ternational and Great Northern said that
he stored cotton free at Houston Ia all
Corners so far as the facilities would per
nit Fits road would do the same thing
! at Galveston IL II had the sheds or " some
one would build them they would he treat
| ed Justly. IL was simply question Of
| business. Galveston would be treated the
same way if the sheds were like Houston.
THE ARGUMENTS.
! This ended the testimony and Mr.. Harris
addressed the commission. saying that the
charge for hauling cotton from Houston
to Galveston was cents. when the tariff
rate was cents. He then went over the
facts brought out by the commission while
In Houston and Galveston. He said the in-
surance dlfferential was n discrimination in
| favor OF Houston and New Orleans over
Galveston. He said that he did not appear
fer Galveston on basis OF sympathy, as
| Houston was entitled to all Of its natural
advantages and Galveston wanted nothing
| on that score. simply an equalization on ac-
count OF facilities. Galveston is impor-
tant 70 Texas and it can't get along with
| out 1t"
! W. u, Cleveland spoke for Houston. say.
| Ing that Galveston had asked for some.
| thing which Il already possesses and do not
! feel like developing u themselves. You
! can not assist Galveston In this rpsneCt
without affecting Houston's business Inter
| ests. We have located our congresses 10
| parity with Galveston and IL is not ex-
\ pected Of you 10 help them when thcy have
! lost their opportunities Work nc Houston
has progressed the same as other places.
! We have never asked the railroad for any.
| thing because VIC are enterprsing. and you
] shoNd not pull down our business. II we