The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1909-02-27

u. 5. l91.
The mere fact that given town has
been recognized as trade center, and
is enabled by its more favorable rate
adjustment to distribute, to a certain
territory, cannot justify the continu-
ance of rates which result in undue
preference.
Payner-Gardner Co. VS.. L. G. N.
ct al, 13 L c. C. R. 636.
Competition does not of itself make
dissimilar conditions, but is merely q
factor In determining their existence.
George Tileston Milling Co. VS..
Northern Pac. R. Co., l. c. c. r.
346.
A case in point illustrative of the
discrimination between places calling
for correction by this Commission Is
that of Board of Mayor, etc of Dawson
VS.. Central of Georgia ct al, l. G. c.
R. 142. The railroads had themselves
grouped together Americas, Albany,
and Eufaula, whose competitive condi-
tons were not dissimilar from those of
Dawson. especially as to certain rates
sought to be corrected. 1t was shown
that Dawson had only two thousand
eight hundred population, while that
of Americas was more than three
times as great. Presumably the VOL
ume of business was in the same pro-
portion, but the competitive conditions
being similar the Commission held
point system is maintained, the rail-
road companies interested should give
Dawson the same rates from New
York as Eufaula and the same rates
from Nashville, Chattanooga and Gin
cinnati as Albany, and the same rates
from New Orleans as Americas and
Albany
The same principle was recognized
and applied in the later case of Mayor
and Council of Triton VS.. L. G. N. R.
ct al, 9 L. G. c. R. 100. Triton, not
withstanding its disparity in popula-
ton and other respects. was held to
have the same competitive conditions
as the other towns in the group in
question, and the railroads were re-
auirad 70 daoict fro,,o nh n roiY,r n birb
er rate TO Triton than to Valdos
and Albany.
We call especial attention to the two
foregoing cases, because it cannot be
denied that the case in favor of Hat
tiesburg as against Meridian and Jack
son is very much stronger than that
made by Triton and Dawson against
its neighboring towns.
In Brewer & Hanleiter VS.. L. & n.
R. Co. ct al, /. c. c. R. 224, a sim
liar principle in regard to discrimina-
ton was applied and Griffin, Ca, was
held entitled to the same rates from
Cincinnati and Louisville as those to
Macon, a competing point reached
through Griffin.
1t must not be forgotten that the
railroad companies themselves volun-
tarily inaugurated and maintained the
practice of selecting and grouping
towns as competitive or basing points.
The Commission, while it has never
Endorsed the practice, has uniformly
required that it shall not be perverted
into giving such basing points undue
advantages over other points SINH
larly situated. In other words, if the
companies assume to classify towns,
they must do it along lines uniform
and just.
In Southern Grocery Co. VS.. Ga.
Northern Ry. ct al. IL I. G. c. R. 229,
the Commission reiterated the forego-
ing rule and applied it in favor of
Moultrie as against Triton, Valdosta,
Thomasville and Fitzgerald, holding
that the conditions at Moultrie were
not substantially dissimilar, and, II
the other towns were to be treated as
trade centers, Moultrie should be Civ
en- the same advantage.
In all or most of the foregoing cases
the proximity of the towns to, and
their connection with, Atlantic ports
were held entitled to consideration in
fixing the rates. When then should
Hattiesburgs proximity to the Gulf
not be cons!3reed in fixing rates from
the East? 1t is much closer to the
Gulf than either Meridian or Jackson,
and ocean and rail freights pass
through Hattiesburg to Meridian and
Jackson.
In anthony Grocery Company VS.. A.,
T. G. S. F. Ry Co ct al, 10 /. C. G. R.
sos, the proximity of Anthony to the