The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-22
MONTGOMERY RATES


 (COntinued From Page One.) asked what about grain. iron and packing products from the West Mir. Dearing admitted that they did | not figure in this arrangement.
 His next tack was to emphasize that
 Montgomery was an inland city; the
 others were gulf ports competing for
 the import and export trade with other
 cities. Montgomery. he added, on ac-
 count of the Alabama river. caused
 low competitive rate to certain points.
 This he thought one advantage due to
 river competition. Mir. Dearing claimed that Montgou-
 cry had. oustripped her rivals. and had l greater jobbing trade than Mobile
 and Pensacola. Tn his opinion Mont
 gomery should not ask more.
 Take every circumstance" he went
 on, Rates from the East, water rates from the West and Central Vest they should not ask more. You ought
 to dismiss the case, your honors. and
 permit the relative adjustment to re- main"
 Agrees With Mobile. Judge Edward Baxter, of Nashville. followed on behalf of the Louisville
 railroads. He contended that Mont gomery always did pay higher rates
 than Mobile from Ohio and Mississippi
 river points. Montgomery was an 'in- terior" point" he said, and he did not
 think the city had been discriminated against.
 He dweit at some length on the building of the Mobile and Ohio Rail- road, and declared the companies had
 right to maintain existing rates.
 They were entitled to certain differ entials which were enumerated and discussed. The Mobile contention he believed to be entirely legitimate, 'Tf you decide in favor of Montgom- cry" Judge Baxter stated to the com
 mission. "you will create more trouble | than you can cure and cause further | litigation"
 Mir. Stringfellow concluded the arr
 gument for the Montgomery Freight Bureau. At the outset he discussed water competition as 1t affected the points at issue, and said that water competition alone would not justify
 the rates. He answered the arguments l of the opposing counsel in regard to | the ports. on the gulf, and entered | into a full explanation and at con-
 siderable length of the tariffs by rail l to Galveston and other points. Compe- l tition of various markets were re- | ferred to also and he insisted that the l testimony of competent witnesses proved that the East does not compete |
 ate the claims of the defendanta op. posing the case that has been made by Montgomery.
 He called attention to a number of decisions of the commission, and as he read them the interests of the carriers had been considered. but they had
 never been allowed to override the law in making unjust determinations. In answer to q question from Chair man Knapp MT. Stringfellow explained
 certain determinations against Mont
 gomery by saying that the rates from | Louisville to Montgomery were the most favorable and those from St. Louie
 the least favorable All the figures
 were given and the difterentials were | discussed. Here Mir Kealhofera explained by request of MT. stringfellow that St. Louis had just as low rates to Mobile | as Louisville. ie How Montgomery is Damaged. MT. Stringfellew next proceeded to l explain how these rates enabled Mo
 bile to cut Montgomery out of the flour trade. and in spite of the latter'e geographical position. He appealed
 then strongly for the rights of Mont gomery under the law.
 Next he reviewed in a striking way
 the testimony of a number of wit nesses as to the discrtminations against Montgomery. He cited several important decisions of the commission
 to sustain the contention of the Mont gomery Freight Bureau.
 He quoted extensively from the tes- | timony of Freight Traffic Manager Greene of the Southern Railway.
 MT stringfellow said that defen- dants had claimed that if rates
 were reduced it would change the rel
 ative adjustment from Ohio and Mis-
 sissippi river points. He showed how Pensacola had been a pet" of the com
 panies. and next discussed foreibly
 what is called the Mobile Combina-
 tion." This enabled him to call att tentlon again to the alleged discrlmi-
 nations against Montgomery.
 In answer to the assertion by defen-
 dants that the Mobile Combination"
 Is all that Montgomery is entitled to Mir. Stringfellow declared that would
 not help Montgomery bit on grain. iron and packing products.
 WiIl Prepare Rate Tables. At the conclusion of the arguments
 Commissioner Clark asked that complete table Qf rates be made and furnished the commission as to the
 actual differences in rates to Mobile and Montgomery. He thought this would greatly aid the commission in reaching decision, and suggested that the list include rates from Chicago.
 st. Louis. Louisville. Cincinnati. Mem
 phis, Evansville, Louisville, Columbus, Ky, and other points.
 Mir Kealhofer and Traffic Manager Greene will jointly prepare this table within the next few days. That will
 necessitate the presence of Mr. Keal- hofer here for several days longer.
 Messrs. Vandiver and Gunter left tonight for Montgomery. MT. String fellow went with them as far as Iynchburg, where he will stop one day before returning home.
 All of these gentlemen are we'll sat isfed with the outlook, and they hopa and believe, they say, that the case will be won for Montgomery. The opinion win probably be written by |