The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-12-03

TTIII IIIF y ENEIF-- TIiN ET.NEFTTH III ="
cost OF handling local freight Vas 10
to II pei cent higher than IN the case
IF Interstate freight and hat MessTs.
TIT and FinCk said four - six times
as much. Who is right" he asked.
Mr.. Hillman: II have ALREADY testl-
fled. You remember that in my tes-
tinony | stated that there were vary
ing conditions on different Dad
Twelve u fifteen per cent higher for
local business is taking the average u
the roads"
Mr.. Thorn: This. then is the situa-
ton. on one side CT the question you
are opposed TO the accountants and
the supreme Court"
Yes
Mr.. Thorn: A to the cost, you are
opposed to Finck and Utt2"
Mr.. Hillman: II am opposed de-
cided1y to four times the cost OF IN
terstate as a basis of calculation Of
the cost Of intrastate business ! have
Yet to see a railroad accountant he
continued. who can furnish any hg-
ures in support of any such difference.
They will furnish isolated cases. but
| nave yet to find one to give an
analysis of
In answer To the question how much
investigation he had made of operat-
ing conditions in the South and in
North Carolina, the witness stated
hat he had gone no further than to
the reports made to the North
Carolina Corporation Commission AS
to North Carolina rates he was not ac-
quainted and had no Information as
to the conditions Of operation.
SOme Hypothetical Admissions.
Mr.. Thorn, continuing his examina-
ton, brought out from the witness
the admission to d hypothetical ques-
ticn that, IT it was true that the aver
age lading Of a local train was one
fourth as much as that of a through
train, then for the reVenue from those
two rains to be equal it would require
that the rates on the local train be
four times as great.
Answering this question, Mr.. Hill
man said: Two and two make four
agree with with"
1T is equally true retOrted Mr..
Thorn, 'as that two and two do make
four"
On the passenger question Mr..
Thorn took the witness up on his
statement that he considered the cost
of running a local train no greater
and possibly less than [, through train.
Then. he queried. the matter Of how
Guch it costs to earn a ollar depends
on the revenue of the train? Mr.. Hill
man agreed and Mr.. Thorn wanted to
know whether the train that
biggest revenue did not earn a dollar
at the smaller cost. Yes replied
the witness, provided there were the
same number of passengers
Further questioned the witness
stated that without regard to pas
sengers, if it were conceded that the
through passenger train earne a
greater revenue it cost less to earn a
dollar.
Then asked Mr.. Thorn. you were
talking about the cost OF running the
train and not about the cost of earn
ing a dollar"
Mr.. Hillman.s If
Now, said Mr.. Thorn, you have pro-
ceeded upon the assumption that the
reports consider all local trains as
carrying only interstate and no inter-
state business, and that they consider
interstate and no intrastate business.
Now suppose it should turn out that
the cOmplainant's testimony shows that
the Interstate trains carry both local
and through traffic and that the intra-
state trains carry only local traffic,
With a negligible exception, would not
the result be different?
IF" replied the witness. 1T were
taken notice of in u computation of
expenses as we'll as in testimony, it
would be a factor
Mr.. Thorn applied the same question
More o EOr Mr.. Thorn.
as to car load lots on intrastate ship
ments and the witness made the same
anSWer-that the difference would be
a quantity. had it been taken into ac-
count in computation as we'll as in
testimony.
Are You ready to say" asked Mr..
Thorn, THAT it costs no more to
handle car load freight on a local
train than on a through train?"
The witness stated that he had
made no such statement; that. since
there were fewer carloads on a local
tho - - n,,~ ~ 81 ~r a.
former woul be much greater.
Picking Mr.. Hillman up on his
statement of the day before than the
average haul of freight in the United
States was 120 miles, and his deduc-
ton from this fact that the intrastatc
mated by the railroads. because a
radius of that distance from central
points would leave the shipments
within the State, Mr.. Thorn took Mr..
Hillman on a geographical journey
throughout the country, applying his
rule to q number of cities. Mr..
Thom called attention first to the fact
that the number of tons hauled ac-
cOrding to the statistics Of
the interstate commerce com
mission was not an index of the dist
ance they were hauled ecaus as the
him seriatim with respect to whether
same ton of freight travelling a long
distance was frequently handled BY
several lines, it was frequently re-
ported. each time Tor shorter hauis
Mr.. Hillman admitted that to this ex-
tent he was mistaken in his diagnosis
II MIR Thom proceeded to question
him seriatIn with respect to whether
the 12O mile rule would work with
various cities. New York. Philadelphia.
Baltimore, st Louis, Louisville. Gin
cinnati, kansa City. New Orleans,
Memphis. Charlotte. Asheville. Savan-
nah. Greensboro. etc. In all of these
instances the 100 mile rule as to
freight would throw the shipments
outside the State.
THE rule don't work ?" asked Mr..
Thorn.
NO" replied Mr.. Hillman. ii does
not" He went on to say however.
that his statement had been merely in
cidental to the point that he was try
ing TO bring out. that the railroads
greatly underestimate the mOGn of
interstate traffic.
Mr.. Tnom: The eason you give is a
little Weak-it Wobbles?"
That Greensboro Booklet.
Very blithely Mr- Thorn approached
the next statement of the witness that
there were practically no %jobbing CEN
ters in the state OF North Carolina. He
~ $50 - - --i1 +Ia 1--- Il