The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-08-23


 river crossings to the Southeast. Tn this connection the railroads fl- ed motion and demurrer to show certain allegations with regard to the southeastern freight associations and being combinations in restraint of trade and in violation of the anti. trust law. The grounds for this mo- ton are first that the Interstate Commerce Commission has frequently ruled that 1t has no Jurisdiction to administer the Sherman anti-trust law. that law being solely a matter for the action of the courts. Second. that the Interstate Com ] merce Commission has ruled that a rate may be reasonably lower, Indeed unreasonably low. even though 1t be the result of an Illegal commission. This ruling. It is stated, has been made in several cases and notably in that of the China and Japanese trad ton piece goods from this country to China and Japan. In that case. 1t Is charged that the ocean steamship lines operating through the Euez Canal, and known as the suez route. combined with Western railways to make a rate from this country to | the Orient in competition with the steamship lines and railways, this rate being so low that 1t was ques- ttonable whether or not 1t paid the | cost of transportation over the fifteen | thousand miles involved. So the com mission held that even If the rate had been made by an Illegal commits sion, which was beyond their juris- l dietion to determine nevertheless per- haps 1t was an unreasonably low rate On this ground the railway com 1 panies In their answer, have moved to strike from the complaint In the pend 1 lng cases. all allegations against the 1 Southeastern Freight Association. They take the position that the South4 eastern Freight Association and ali similar associations do not suppress trade but ln fact promote 1t and are essential to the orderly conduct of trade and commerce
 Trade Demoralised.
 The railroads allege in the pres Judge Emory Speer, of Georgia. was In force from August l to August 5, giving 9 lower rate to shippera in Georgia than to those in any other state in the South Eastern territory the effect was to demoralize and dis- organlse trade and commerce and that merchants In Louisville, Cincinnati and elsewhere, could or would make no sales. owing to the Generalization caused by the order. The railway companies take the position that this IS demonstration of the fact that the southeastern Freight Association is aosoluteiy necessary to prevent de- morallsation of commerce. and that they promote trade instead of retard. Ing It. The railroad companies say that during the year 1905. dissatfs. faction was expressed by the ship pera of Atlanta as to rates to that point from the Ohio and Mississippi rwer crossings, It being alleged that the rates to Atlanta from such cross, ings were out of relation to rates to Birmingham and Montgomery, Ala oama As the result of conferences held at the time, the rates from Ohio and Mississippi river crossings to Atlanta were reduced but the de- fendants deny that the reduced rates were just or reasonable or compsn- satory. the reduction being made solely with the view of putting At- lanta upon a basis more necessary similar although not the same as BIr- mingham and Montgomery. The re- dueed rates went Into effect February 5. 1905. The defendants alleged that the recent increase in rates has com petition same as heretofore. They deny that the territory north of the Onio and west of the Mississippi river IS dominated by any traffie association whieh fixes or maintains freight rates or suppresses competition or restraints interstate trade.
 The railroads deny that commodi. ties involved in their increase of rates ! are entitled to lower rates than other commodities or that the advance was ctner than small and reasonable, and declare that the increase win not se- riously. or at all, disturb existing trade relations or injure the consuming pub. lie. They deny that the margin of profit obtained by the dealer will not permit him to absorb the entire ad- vance or that the consuming public will be forced to bear any portion of the additional charge represented by an increase in the price. Even should the consuming public be compelled to pay some portion of thek t.tonal charge. or the whole of 1t, tk re that an amount 50 paid will b
 nitely small and the public will j..
 feel 1t or any way be injured by 1t They deny that the advance complained of will represent tax to the dealers and public of Georgia, of anything like as much as s500,00o annually, or that the same is tax to any extent.
 Wont Restrict TFafElc.
 The directors deny that the increase will restrict the volume of traffic. and declare that 1t is not even a sufficient compensatory charge fairly to meet the cost in value of the service per- formed. They claim that while the net rates of some of the roads have in recent months shown some advance, | the net earnings as well as gross earnings. have shown a very large diminution since Feb. l, 1905. They declare that the wages of their em- ployes have been increased, and that prices of all articles necessary for the maintanance and equipment of their lines are higher; that the demand of the public for efficiency of service has I become more and more exacting as well as the demand for quicker transit, better terminal facilities, depots and stations, larger and more expensive cars, heavier engines stronger bridges, heavier rails, and in all other respects that they have been compelled to meet an increased and most costly demand for safe, prompt and efficient service.
 The large volume of trafic enabled them in some measure to keep pace with these extra expenses. but since November. ls07s, the trafic has been decreased. decreasing their gross reve- nues enormously, while they have been obliged to continue their high scale of wages and to pay high prices for all material and supplies. The railroads aver that there Is no alternative left to them except to advance their rates in order to pay their employees. They say that the development of the South l depends on an increased rather than a