The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-12
MONTGOMERY SHIPPERS TO APPEAL TO INTERSTATE
 COMMERCE COMMISSION

merce Act. this system was approved and upheld by the supreme Court of the United States. because they were convinced that the raiiroads desired 10 regulate competition, and make their rates conform herewith. Al that time a complex situation was relieved and every one apparently satisfied that il vas the intention of the rail lines to give just and equitable division of territory to each principal jobbing cen vlces was theoretically provided for re- lative adjustment to all other basing points whenever commercial necessi- ties warranted a change in a special commodity to any given point
 Conditions have changed compet- ing lines have been constructed that have abridged .sI ace between initial Ohio and Mississippi River crossings and Southeastern basing points; con currently other baslng or Jobbing points have been established. Advantage has ing supremacy in the territory they have opened. much to the discomfort of traffic managers of lines serving older commercial communities who are and reduction in rates. that might fol- low 10 other points by reducing the major or principal points of competi-- more equitable view should be observed. and that such justifiable opportunities should be made available by offering competition: the well known sequence thereof is improved business with in- creased tonnage and revenue.
 Consistent and Reasonable.
 considering the questions Of fact, we think we are consistent and reas- enable in our request for revision of the present rates We are tEat aware and East may have s" to follow any reduction to tbls point. though we l ,5 fa pe tfyf to points basing on Montgomery; and what .s the volume of business to those points when compared with the in- to Montgomeryf We, consider this I false premise: but If you are positive in your conclusions to the contrary, why was not the same same fostering 3s care cry in 1888 when @ radical reduction was made to Birmingham
 Prior to December 16. 1888. the rates and Montgomery were.
 ss ss 7s ss ss {, as A 3, B 3 20 p A ss $ lc ts. " on Tfe the date mentioned. i rates were lower to Birmingham without eorres- bonding reductions to Montgomery which figures. with minor changes. have and the comparison tow is:
 kNtg E ss s s s sS sS ss ss sS tS lbif. is IS 20 is iS ii 0 0o 0so .
 "ReIative reductions have been made Ito Birmingham on commodities. Change to Montgomery has been reduction in The figures are self-audib!e."
 Then follows the narration of mum erous incidents to show that rates to Montsomery is disScriminated M against 1 In this connection the petition says. 1 We appreciate your concedtng the right of the first law of nations by Louis Mobile combination to Montgom- i cry after we had made the discovery, hut attention Is directed to the fact that In adherence .ers to its announced .p Itablishment to Birmingham, Of the same St. Louis-Mobile combination to- tais as obtain to Montgomery. We do mot object to this but conversely, when lever a commodity rate Is effected 10 I Birmingham, the Montgomery lines do not use the same total to this point. cordance with tine current classlfica- ton of the article changed"
 ,l Violation of the Law.
 Reference is then made, to the rates lon the various commodities and the pe- ltition continues:
 Tt is our opinion that no plainer violation of the Third Section of the Interstate Commerce Act is evidenced stronger than by the above exhibits. That part of this section to which we
 "That it shall be uniayf1l for any common carrier subject to the provis- Ions of this Act to make or give any tundue or unreasonable preference or I advantage to any particular person. or any particular description of traffic. In any respect whatsoever. or to sub teet any particular person. company, firm corporation, or locality, or any particular description of tranic. to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or dis iadYantage in any respect whatsoever"
 Tt is admitted that rates from Louis- lville and other River Crossings to Bir- mingham were made to meet the arbi- frary action of the k. c. NJ. & R. R. R.. in establishing rates from Memphis to made by them ,are wholly beyond your control. We contend. however that you are in control of rates from the Ohio River to Birmingham and like of the Frisco System, (formerly K. C. M. & R. R. R). are under bias and lpersonal preference to Birmingham, in . asmuch as they have frequently an- nounced their purpose to keep Birm ng- ham as low or lower than Montgom- cry The Frisco has no interest in Montgomery and by' acauiescenee of ed in Montgomery to the rates as- tablished by the Frisco to Birmingham
 such lines arbitrarily bestow upon that
 
 business in territory that should be
 legitimately served by Montgomery. and at the same time decline to give
 any relative relief to Montgomery. In
 other words. you allow your interests
 at Birmingham to cause you to cOn-
 tinue unjust discrimination against
 Head of a River.
 i Montgomery Is essentially a Jobbing
 or distributing center. by virtue of it's location and the agricultural district it
 serves. It was not made such by the railroads. but by being af the head of a navigable river. You have always
 conended that the rates GO MOntgom1 cry were made in relation to this water fact that Birmingham has no such l competition yet radical reduction has | been made in her favor; then, when this is pointed out, you reply that you | cannot reduce rates to Montgomery on
 basis of water competition, as the force of such competition does not justify it. 1 In other words. for Inconsistent req l sons. you cannot place Montgomery on the level to which she properly be- l longs. + .. >: 1 Montgomery has not large iron in- l tries. coal mines etc, whose output gives a natural support through labor | employed. We contend, therefore, that l other communities as to enable them to | do business in a territory upon which | they are not dependent. and in com petition with a point that Is wholly de- l pendent for its business upon that sec i tion Our radius of distribution is | constantly becoming smaller by such | infringement and the ultimate result of l this restriction Is the complete limit l ing of the extent of business that can | be done by Montgomery Under ex-