The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-10-30
LAWYERS DISCUSS
FREIGHT CHARGES
-Four commissioners Listen to
Four Lawyers Talk Six
Hours of Rates.
DECISION NOT EXPECTED
FOR SEVERAL MONTHS YET
II Rates TO Utah Points Arc
Changed the Eject VIII BE
Felt by Boise.

Three hours on each side were al
lowed for argument TO The railroads
aud to the Salt Lako Traffic bureau
before the interstate commerce com
mission sitting en- banc in tho Federal
court room in this city Friday. Judge
G. C. Dcy and Manager 5. II. Bah.
cock spoke for the Salt Lake inter
ests. while Judge G.. +. billiard Of Chi.
cago, interstate commerce attorney for
al the Hartman interests, and l.. N.
Clark, general attorney for the Denver
4 Rio Grande Railroad company. with
headquarters at Denver, argued for the
railroads. Although various other
roads had legal talent present they
took no active part in the proceedings.
The commissioners on the bench were
hudson c. Clements of Georgia, who
ranks second in point Of service On
The commission and who, therefore,
prosidcd Edgar i. Clark oC Iowa, c..
-, prouty of Vermont, and Franklin
*. Kane of California. 7. l.. Phil
lips of New York. the official stcuog
Iaphcr for the commission. took down
the record in shorthand.
The following railroad men were
present rs spectators and representing
their various roads As defendants; J..
I. Wilcox Of Chicago; Il. n. Clark, gen
cral counsel for the Denver Il Rio
Grande at Denver: j {, .jcffcrv Of
The Missouri Pacific, Mt Chicago, Par
ley l.. Williams, general counsel for the
Union Pacific and Oregon Short Line
salt Lake City; George Smith, coun-
sci for the Union Pacific and Oregon
Short Line, Salt Lake City; Pcnucll
Chcrrington, counsel for the San Pedro
\ & al / nj G.lt
Lake City; John \. Reeves. general
freight agent, Oregon Short Line; :.
y. Derrah. assistant general freight
agent. Denver & Rio Graudc: i, 4.
Plaisted, assistant general freight
agent. Oregon Short Line.
4 few local business mon dropped
in 10 listen for while. but as the pro.
ccedings were largely technical and
rather dull, they did not remain long,
Three Hours Each.
Commissioner Clements opened the
hearing al 10 a. M, and announced
that attorneys must agree between
themselves concerning The details of
thc hearing. as the commission could
allow only one day to thc Salt Lake
argument. because Saturday it had 10
listen TO the arguments in the ease of
the Weber club and Fair association Of
Ogden, Utah. against the Union Pa
cific and allied lines over certain pas"
scngcr rates. Testimony in this case
recently has been taken in Ogden.
Three hours 10 each side was quick
ly agreed upon. whereupon Judge Dcy
opened for the Salt Lake Traffic
bureau, He spoke for one hour and
fifteen minutes. after which Judge Dil.
lard took up the argument fer thc rail
roads aud spoke for an hour and half,
until the adjournment for the noon re,
cess nj / clock.
NJ o clock Attorney Clark. repre-
scnting the Denver Il Rio Grandc, took
The floor and spoke for the rest Of the
time allowed TO his side. Manager
l3abcock then followed and presented
he local side OF the ease from where
Judge Dey dropped it during the fore
noon session
After the arguments the commission
announced that The railroads would
have till December ] TO complete their
brief. after which the Salt Lake Traf.
tic bureaU would have till December
- TO iilc an answer. At the opening
OF the present hearing Manager Bah
cock fled the brief of the Salt Lake.
side Of the case. 1t is in printed form
and covers siXty'sev pages. with varl-
Gus tables of figures inserted
The Railroad Side
No attempts were made at oratorv
by any of the four speakers The pro-
cccdlugs were "A verbal condensation,
more or less, OF the testimony submit
ted ut The hearing in this city two
months ago, such as was published in
The Tribune at the time No new
matters were brought out, and moth
ing unusual happened during the en-
tire day. No witnesses We're heard, and
no personalities were INDUCED in
The two railroad lawyers simply re
pcatcd their side Of the standard ar
gumcnt that freight rates cannot logi.
caJly, nor IN practice. be put on what
is called ''milcagc basis This
means, in the last analysis. and 10 use
a simple illustration, that If it costs
cent to pull one ton one mile, that
IT may cost half cent or . cents or
even cents 10 haul one ton two miles
The railroads cuDtcndcd that the only
fair test of Il freight rate is the actual
cost of hauling the goods, plus a fair
profit on the money invested, both in
The present and in the past. On a
mileage basis road with a short. level
line would earn excessive dividends,
or else tho, other road with the longer
route and harder grades wonld have
to become hopelessly bankrupt.
The Oregon Short Line, and the Union
Pacific on the one hand. and the Dcu-
Yer 6 Rio Grande on the other were
used by the two speakers for the rail.
roads as local examples,
Like Hotel
In word the railroads argued that
not the "mileaee basis" but the
''ioint COST idea was correct. The
Joint cost basis. TO use Il homely
example, may be illustrated bv the
rate of profit on a meal as served in
restaurant costing 30 cents. and com.
posed Of a steak at 50 cents, pic al
10 cents, and coffee at cents. with
bread and butter and soup. the dishes,
water, etc, served free.
The profit on the whole meal is 6
cents, as follows: On the steal. ! cent.
90 the pie cents, on tho coffee 4
cents. with loss on the bread and but.
ter and soup of 3 cents. leaving i net
profit Of cents on the meal as
whole.
The railroads, in regard to rates,
claim that if they make only ! cent in
some cases that they should he allowed
profit Of . or 10 cents in other cases.
and that they have to haul some goods
and passengers at an actual loss under
some circumstances, Just, as the hotel
man mnst sell his food, to make an
average profit.
They claim that bpcausc tho roads