The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1909-12-21

road commission gives the following
resume:
First, that the evidence entirely
fails to sustain the theory that
water competition at the coast termi-
below the point of fair remuneration
The water tonnage show by the rail-
roads own figures is entirely too
small to be a controlling factor, and
no prospective increase is indicated
sufficient materially to effect the rate
situation.
Every act of the railroad in fixing
rates negatives the idea that they
regard the SO called water competi-
ton as a matter of consequence. The
railroads fix the rates and raise them
without consulting the water car
riers or considering what they may
do. The water carriers base their
rates Upon the rail rates, thus
recognizing that the railroads are in
control of the situation.
1t is shown that. eve If the water
competition has lowered rates at the
terminals. it is a competition which
not only the principal defendants in
this case, but EVE other roads, has
deliberately run into and courted,
and that there are two more such
roads In course of construction, from
which we must conclude that the
terminal business is sufficiently re-
munerative to warrant the construc-
ton of these roads.
1t is shown that the Central Pa
ciflc road would never have been con-
structed, or it's construction justified
If it could not have reached a coast
terminal.
1t is shown that rail carriers do
not meet the water rate, but charge
80 to 40 per cent more and then get
from 90 to 95 per cent of the bust
ness.
1t is shown that, when the freight
is left at Nevada points, the railroad
effects a saving of from 35 per cent
to nearly rs per cent of he cost OF
transportation from Ogden to the
terminals.
1t is shown that, when the profits
on terminal business at the terminals
be large or small, such rates applied
at Nevada points would yield the
company from 9 to IA per cent, and
perhaps more, the just value of the
property, which is a very large re-
turn upon SO large and safe an in
vestment.
1t is shown, and not denied, hat
the excess charge complained of is
levied by the final carrier alone; that
there is neither agreement nor di-
vision with any connecting or other
carrier, and that it is just as dis
tinctively a Southern Pacific COM
pany proposition as if there were no
other railroad in existence. 1t may
be likened to a switching, wharfage,
or warehouse charge by a final car
rier. No order eliminating the back
haul charge would affect any other
carrier. That they could not be az
fected is ~conclusively shown by the
circumstance that the Southern Pa
cifc was left to make the
defense alone, the Lake Shore and
Michigan Southern and the New
York Central and Hudson River COM
panies not even taking enough in
terest in the cause to file answers,
while the answer of the Union Pa
cifc and Chicago and North Western
were purely pro forma-put in
doubtless, because those raods con-
stitute a part of the so called Harri-
man system, and felt that they must
make a showing of backing up the
Southern Pacific company, a part OF
the same system.
The only reason given for the abb
~sorption of the entire back haul
charged by the Southern Pacific COM
nany is that stated by defendants
counsel namely: That the strong
strategic position of the Southern
ia anoh1oc II RI fnrcQ
this concession from it's co-carriers
carriers which, by the way, per-
form the great bulk of the service.
This explanation makes the charges
even less justifiable than they O
have been with no explanation-at all
for it shows thai the principal de-
PENDANT herein is perpetrating a
double wrong, first, in exactlng an
unjust charge, and. second, IN deny
inc it's co-owners any share therein.
If the terminal charge Is not fair
" remunerative, it must OF necessity,
affect all the carriers engaged In the
haul, and the levy of the back haul
charge for the sole use and beneht
of the final carrier creates an exceed
ingly strong presumption that water
competition has nothing to do with
the differentials between the coast
terminals and interior points.
1t is shown by the evidence OF Mr..
Luce at Salt Lake (p. 748) that the
alleged water competition at the
terminals is the only reason for the
higher charges at interior points.
Therefore all the different commod-
tiles must, of necessity stand upon an
equal footing in this respect and
should be treated together, not sep
arately. Whether the profit upon
the carriage of a particular commod-
ity is great or small, 1t is obvious
that if there is any profit at the ter
minal, there must be more profit at
the same rate at the interior point,
wher the haul is shorter and the
cost of carriage less.
The railroad traffic managers ana
agents do not, themselves, attempt to
trace any relation between the coast
of carrying particular commodities
and the rates charged. Clearly, 1T is
almost impossible to do SO. Hence,
in dealing with this case the proper