Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-12-03

~ ~ .'.',7 Y 5I1EI=iE
TO Boise, Ida-,-
Missouri river 1888 So IS
Salt Lake City AS 80 "a
PICKLES --CARLOADs.
10 Butte. Mont,
Missouri river. LILO 1.13 20
Salt Lake City 400 SO "a
10 Boise, Ida.,
Omaha 1883 1.16 1876
Salt Lake City 4s5 .65 80
'"The rates on canned goods are rela-
lively the same.
WHY shouldn't the transportation
company do all it can to further the
interests Of the Utah manufacturer
when from the fruits or his industry
they receive in earnings nearly 100 per
cent more than his competitors in dts
tant states? n; tSifS
Now, With respect to Mr.. Reeves
profit averaging talk 1t is. true, that
there is q we'll established land recog-
nized commercial rule pertaining ito
profits, but Mr. Reeves Is notAapt or
correct in his Illustrations All staple
and quick moving, commodities are sold
at a less margin of profit than are
hlgherss priced or slow moving arti-
cles. but the aggregate profit to the mer-
chant Is determined by the volume of
sales. which frequently attaches to
staple rather than on the higher priced
goods This principle holds good In
rainlroadling. No merchant would ex-
pect a railroad company to haul car
Of boots and shoes for the same reven-
uee that they get out Of a car of soap,
but to the average man it does not ap-
pear unreasonable to expect carrier
to haul a car of fish poles from San
Francisco to Salt Lake City at the
same price 1t gets to Denver, 700 1niles
further +ri's = =.7est-''.7
AS TO WATER COMPETITION.
Referring to water competition and
Pacific coast terminal rates which. Mr..
Reeves states, would prove disastrous
and impossible If applied as a measure
to the entire business done we offer
In reply the testimony of J. C. Stubbs,
F (now traffic director of the Hartman
lines), before the interstate commerce
commission lin the case of the New
York board Of trade and Transporter
ton, versus the Pennsylvania Railroad
company. ct al. Mr.. Stubs testified as
follows:G n - e gf Is ~.
:" I think have already testified be-
fore the commission that the actual
cost OF movement of freight eastbound
from San Francisco, taking all the ele-
ments 9of cost that can be properly
charged against the movement of a
particular lot. Of freight, will not -ex-
SSSi iACe-Clt, luis EOl IL CENT IL Ton q
mile 1t will be less than that, What
ever we get above that Is something
over and above what it7costs to handle
IT. 1t is exceedingly difficult to figure
that out TO mathematical certainty.
We do not carry anysof this tea for
less than a half cent a ton a mile.
Now we secure from that at least a
profit of one-eighth of d cent a ton
mile. We are not In this business for
nothing, unless 1t is a temporary mat
ter, like being forced by the Canadian
Pacific to come down and see who is
going to last the longest. we do not
carry goods for less than it costs u.s. 4
COMPARISON OF RATES.
That being the case, iron articles
moving from Pittsburg to San Fran
cisco at a rate of 5 rs mills per ton
Will a larger profit than the tea re-
ferred to, but the law of average is i'm
muutable. hence the Utah shipper must
pay 140 per cent more than the San
franciscan. Cut off the exorbitarlt
profit OF 100 per cent and we will agree
to pay the 40 per cent Is our pfoiposI
ton unfair it
Bolts and horseshoes between the
same points to San Francisco, 81 mills
per ton per mile; to Utahe12is mills
per tone per milc-11e per cent more.
Wouldn't be Unfair to ask the rail-
road to charge us IS per cent more
than their coast patrons, thus reliev-
Ing us Of 81 per cent tribute to that
immutable law of average
Fruit Jars from Missouri river to
San Francisco, mills per ton per
mile; to Utah, u mills per ton per
mile-262 per cent more than the coast
dealer pays. AS proof of our dispo-
sition to DO fair, we Will agree to
be satisfied with rate STi5 per cent
higher than our coast neigbbors pay.
VIII the railroads agree to this?
ils 1t fair to our wool growers to
charge them 1876 per cent more foFsthe
transportation of their product to the
Boston market than is charged their
coast competitors? We think not.
EXAMPLES OF DISCRIMINATION. i
These are but q few examples of dis
elimination out of the hundreds of cases
which might be cited, We're 1t necessary,
TO proveffour case What furthGr' ar
gument is necesSlry-+it being admitted
that all business moved to the coast
pays a prolific prove that railroad
rates which show profit varying from
III to 262 per cent are unreasonable
and unfair? How can Utah expect to
forge ahead rapidly bearing the bur-
den of the irnmutable Inv of average
which requires the payment, not only
of her own. but of her Pacific coast
share OF the annual thirty
800 per cent dividend Cwater con-