The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-05-07

territory, but perhaps all these can be adjusted satisfactorily.
 Alabama is growing rapidly and no one can pretend to deny that the rail- roads have been the greatest factors In It's building up. It Is to their in- terest, therefore, to satisfy their pat rons, and thus allay any prejudices that may have been aroused against them We sympathize with those com munities and interests which claim to be injured, not so much by excessive as by discriminating rates, and want the railroad authorities to give them relief.
 The way to arrive at just conclu- sion Is not to take for granted all the wild and excited utterances that may be spread before the people on one side but to calmly and judicially hear what Is to be said on both sides.
 During the past week The Adver- tiser has published many columns of the proceedings before the Railroad Commission. This included a vast ar ray of figures and computations ard with a view to better understanding we present herewith a resume of testi- mony and statements as to the rates in Alabama. We ask all who are inter- ested, and all citizens of Alabama arc interested in the matter, to carefully read and preserve this resume for flu ture reference:
 A brief resume of the evidence be- xxyi11 show the following to be the facts:
 Excluding all irrelevant matter pre- scented, MT. Conner rested his entire case for a reduction of rates upon a comparison which he had ma ie on fifty-odd articles which he had him- rate upon the articles or commodities so selected by him were much lower m Georgia than the rates on the same ar ticles or commodities in Alabama. There was no evidence whatever before the Commission other than this, that the rates prevailing in Alabama were tionate. It follows. therefore. that If the railroads have succeeded Tn dem- onstrating that the rate sheet on the articles selected by MT. Conner was what the general rates in Alabama were as compared with Georgia, and if 1t was further shown by the rail roads that as a fact the average rates between the two States were not very greatly disproportionate, then MT, Co., mer has wholly failed to score single point in the progress of this whole
 The evidence of MT. c. B. Compton. of the L, & N, before the Commission, showed conclusively the following facts.
 That the Georgia classification con- tains only 1,736 articles and the South ern classification No. 33. adopted by the Alabama Railroad Commission, con hEalA ohn Ina nn thara are 1909 articles embraced in the Ala bama classification not covered Tn the Georgia classification.
 It was forcibly- shown to. the Con- ever one of these articles was offered for shipment to the local agents in Georgia, which was not classified by incumbent upon the local agents to de- termine which class it should take; and the Georgia Commission provides that to the article named fin their. classiiic1- tion. The average agent in Georgia cannot possibly possess the skill nec- Ss yr tG HEow few oassfy peops heTs theTs are versed in analogy, and 1t follows, therefore, that confusion must reces- sarily arise. and the agent ordlnarily ton as a protection to. the road. It follows logically, therefore, that the adoption of the Southern classifcation
 
 containing all the articles was wise, because the resultant effect of this wise conception of up-to-date methods tSe peope o2 Aebama ns wei % ss the railroads.
 1t was further shown by Mir Comp of t3n the %s s2g5 mes eSrGa o road4 ony Ssc miles. equivalent to only 9.5 per cent, of the mileage of the State, carried crfu Gf rd and that Cl3SS B Toads, which constitute SIS miles, equivalent to 10.9 per cent of the mile age of all the roads. are permitted 70 per cent; and that Class roads, which constitute 3,447 miles,, equivalent to 55.3 per cent of the mileage of all the roads are permitted to charge 25 per cent more than the standard tariff; and that Glass D roads, which constitute 1922 miles. equivalent to 24.5 per cent Georgia. are permitted to charge on an average of 35 per cent more than the Georgia standard tariff
 The resultant effect of the applica- tion of this scale of rates shows that the rates charged in the State of Geor- gia over the entire mileage of the State are l5'S per cent; m9re nd than tbtS the Sor So centage greater than the Georgia so called standard scale includes the mile age of the roads carrying the standard rates.
 Eliminating the mileage carrying the Georgia standard rates. namely. 5S0 miles. which would make the mileage 5.64s miles. the rates. charged on that number of miles in the State of Geor- gia are 27 per cent. more than the so- called Georgia standard rates.
 It was further shown that in com parison of the rates prevailing for forty miles in Georgia with the rates pre- vailing on the Louisville and Nashville in Alabama on 1.S42 articles. that the average rate charged on the Louisville and Nashville in Alabama was 1.24 per cent. less than the average rate charg- ed all lines in the State of Georgia on the same identical articles.
 Another comparison was made; It was comparison of class rates appll- cable over the Louisville and Nashville the class rates applicable over all the lines in the State of Georgia. This covers all articles classified in the classifcation in Glasses |, ?. 3. 1, 5, 6. this comparison shows that the aver age of all of said class rates charged over the Louisville and Nashville Rail- road in the State of Alabama with the the State of Georgia. Is less on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad in Alabama than on all lines in Georgia, one third of one per cent.
 127 commodities for distances. blocks of five miles. from five to forty miles, with rates on the same commodities for the same distances in Georgia. which are in constant use by the peo- ole living in the rural districts, and are kept constantly in stock in the country stores. This comparison was made for and condensed form the rates charged on such articles, and the showing was conclusive that the average of the rates charged on the Louisville and Qafl gr fa nf