The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-22
Final Arguments in Ala bama Cases. DISCRIMINATION IS CHARGED
 TO THE RAILROADS John Craft Answered for. City of
 Mobile. 8Iontgomery's Charge of Discriminas tiOn Was Ably Argued by Mesarn. stringfelIow and Gunter--soue Railroad History in Ala
 bama Was Given.
BY ALFRED ;. STOPPER.


 Washington. Oct. 21.-(Special.) )-- Final arguments were made today be- fore the Interstate Commerce. Com. mission in the case of Montgomery Freight Bureau against Louisville and Nashville and other lines In the South, from Ohio and Mississippi River cross ing points. The hearing lasted prac- from beginning to end. Tour of the seven commissioners were present. Judge Knapp. chairman, and Commis- sioners Clements. Prouty and Clark. Chairman W. F. Vandiver and Man ager H. s. Kealhofer of the Freight Bureau, were in constant attendance, and did much to aid Attorneys String fellow and Gunter during their argu- ments.
 Mr. Gunter Speaks.
 Col. W. A. Gunter made the open. ing address of about one hour. He from the start showed how Montgom. cry as to car load shipments had been discriminated agai1st lin favor of Mo- bile and Pensacola. Complaint was made of numerous differences he tn- sisted were illegal and unjust and cai- culated to lnjure Montgomery's trade. He was prepared, he said, to show that the law did not sustain such discrinas nations. He contended that the cofn- plaint was well drawn and pointed out that every item in the claim was aa- mitted It was a plea of confession and avoidance, but the roads denied tha conclusion, though the facts were true Other facts were deniable, ana inc burden of the other side was to sustain a plea of confusion and avoid ance. 1. cunter said that other things being eoual eomplainants maintained the | Ionw and short haul must be equal. I If they could show there was any iaw l of conftnerc0 which allowed them No l carrv goods 10 Mobile at the rates they ~ssss enforcing, complafnants would give up their case. He next explaineQ fn detaiI the rates and inquired;
 "yVhy should Mobile be so much lower than Montgomery
 rTha defense of the railroads was
 .t Asscuseed and Colonel Gunter wsnt into the contention of the mes as to inc effect Of water competition aa rotea He also attacked the piea of the railroads that rates ueps"1e1 as largely upon competition from s east denying that this had any enses .1rosr charges hxed for Shipments sIc,sa Spo other drections. As he looked at the aituatIon. 1t was a simple allow snca to Mobile and Pensacola and the evidence showed that 1t was purely arbitrary he claimed. ~..4.,.
 Taking up the claim that Mooiie capital built the Mobile and ono ha- road and that the city should De Ia .,ored Colonel Gunter said complain snts did not deny that the road might gIve Mobile the same rates as New Orleans. and then quoted from de- cislon of the commission as 70 tne public function of corporation caI rving goods that it owed a higher Hl0Ck@ hoiders. A corporation. he insisted, rnmst serve all alike unless there was some legal cause for the contrary.
 He explained fully the situation In Texas and pointed out that they do not attempt In that state things that have been done 70 . aisc[l'aiiA|te ,'s against Montgomery. That was, ne ssid an example given by the other side to justify the conditions conn DIained of by Montgomery.
 Tn concluding Colonel Gunter summed up that the whole case was that rates to Montgomery were higher than they iaould be and could not DC tns,insd in principle or practice. He sdmitted Mobile, on account of water routes had some advantages over Montgomery.
 Toward the close of his arguments Colonel Gunter answered numerous questions propounded by the Commis- sioners.
 cial Club was next heard. He read carefully prepared statement in which he claimed that Montgomery mer- chants have sold in the territory of Mobile. He --ained Mobiles geo. graphical position. and with her wa terways inland and ocean ne salo MO- bile was unsurpassed.
 If the prayer of Montgomery were answered, he declared. 1t would be of no benefit to Nj ntgomery, but would proye A serious disadvantage to Mo- bile. The rates, hs contended, were made by natural conditions and enabled Mobile to Sell to Cuba. the West In- dies and tral America.
 Mobile. Mir Craft declared. must have the same rates as New Orleans. Montgomery, he said could not com pete with Mobile for that trade. Hfei as a Mobile merchant, had helped to build up that outside trade. In ex- ports and imports Mobile, he regarded, as one of the leading gulf ports. It was one of the largest fruit importers of the world. Mobile, he insisted. was compelled to have the prevailing rates. If they were taken away and nut high CT than New Orleans 1t would be very disastrous to Mobile.
 Would AnnIhiIRte Mobile.
 After commissioners anu Clark questioned Mir. Craft he com pleted his statement by saying: If you give a lower rate you will simply annihilate Mobile"
 Attorney W. G. Dearing, of Louis- vile, for the railroads at the outset of his argument stoutly contended that the rates were Justifiable and dwelt upon the part the Mississippi River had always played in fixing maximum rates to New Orleans and gulf ports. This he said. applied to all trafac from the West and Central West, and fixed the relations between New Orleans, Mobile and Pensacola. The Mallory and Nor gan lines also he added. respectively fixed rates to Mobile and New Orleans
 Just here Commissioner Prouty