The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-08-21
VI. & o. Vice President Asked to An
swer These Question:


The Register reprints a series of ques-
tions asked by Mr.. Horace Turner of the
Turner-Hartwell Docks company. These
questions interest the people of Mobile.
and are worth the careful reading of
every man in Mobile whose interests lie
In the city If the charges inferred in
these questions are correct, a very serious
situation confronts the people of Mobile
for the preservation Of property and bus
mess values in this city.
We ask why the Mobile and Ohio
railroad. through the New Orleans and
Northeastern road, their New Orleans
connection, agrees to Join in and absorb
the terminal charges at New Orleans on
business to the United Fruit company
steamers. and cannot do SO at Mobile?
Why is the Mobile and Ohio willing to
give New Orleans this advantage?
We ask why they can afford to alb
sorb the g per car switching goods
to a merchant located on the Louisville
and Nashville and why they cannot af-
ford to absorb the same 50 per car switch
ing when the goods go to a dock? We
ask why the Mobile and Ohio freight de-
partment so earnestly solicited the haul
Ing of the construction materials for the
Turner-Hartwen dock, particularly the
vitrified brick, which earns only $3.50 per
ton from Birmingham to Mobile, agreeing
to absorb the 50 per car switching to the
dock, yet now the Mobile and Ohio finds
that to- absorb these charges on goods
(paying even more revenue per toni will
drive the export business away from Mo-
bile? We ask how the Louisville and
Nashville can pay the Mobile and Ohio
switching and wharfage, also warehouse
charges on export business for Cuba
which the Louisville and Nashville han
die to Mobile, and yet the Mobile and
Ohio cannot afford these same charges
on export business to private docks? We
ask the Mobile and Ohio to explain to the
people of Mobile how the river front can
be developed, how the owners can afford
to build docks, which Mobile needs SO
much, when Mr.. Taylor states that the
source of revenue wharfage charges)
will result in a diversion of traffic to
other ports? Explain how Galveston con-
structed docks and built up Its present
large export trade while charging wharf
age and why Mobile cannot live and
charge wharfage7 we ask the Mobile
and Ohio to explain why their foreign
freight agent went before the Mobile
rivers and harbor committee and advo-
Gated the building of docks at Mobile,
stating that docks were mainly what Mo-
bile needed, why the Mobile and Ohio
kept silent during the construction of the
docks of Heterogeneous Bros. and the
Turner-Hartwel1 Docks company, and
why after these docks were completed,
the Mobile and Ohio finds private docks
and their wharfage charges a burden to
export business? We ask the Mobile and
Ohio to explain why they entered into
an agreement to work with the Colon
Line OF the United Shipping company,
broke faith with that line, and for two
years routed freight through other ports
against the line and against Mobile, even
in spite of the express desire of shippers
to ship the goods via Mobile. Why was
1t necessary to send these goods via New
Orleans and the steamers of the United
Fruit company? We ask IL the Mobile
and Ohio has not withdrawn support
from the Elder-Dempster Line. beginning
with September, and will not then refuse
them berth at the Mobile and. Ohio docks
and through bills of lading. which they
have enjoyed in the past? In effect driv-
ing this line of steamers from the port
Of Mobile. We ask If the Mobile and
Ohio Is not writing through bills of lading
with steamers out of Gulfport and letting
them take cotton that should come to
Mobile? We ask if the Mobile and Ohio
has not refused to write through bills of
lading with a line of steamers the Tur-
ner-Hartwel docks proposed operating,
thus refusing the support that is given
the Gulfport steamers as well as the Ley
land and Harrison lines? We ask why
the Mobile and Ohio refused to welcome
the South Atlantic line When that line
came knocking at our door a few months
ago, and why they were turned away
from Mobile? We ask the Mobile and
Ohio to explain what ocean competition
exists through Mobile when they work
only with the Leyland and Harrison lines,
which lines at Mobile form only sub
agency of New Orleans, the rates being
controlled by New Orleans? We ask why
the Mobile and Ohio encouraged the build
ing of docks through their export agent,
and by keeping silent and not taking any
action to amend their tariffs to shut out
these private docks until the very last
moment?