The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-08-21
Saws Vice President of vi. & 0. Rail
road Must Submit Facts In Mobile
Dock Controversy and Not
''Mere Talk"-ClaimS M. 4
@. Action Will Kill
Dock Development

| intend to change any of the conditions
at Mobile, existing prior to the build
| ing of the Turner Hartwell docks, and
we will be charitable and say we think
| this must be a mistake in print. Sure
ly Mr.. Russell could not make this
statement in the face of the fact that
his roads are today obligated to alb
sorb the terminal charges at Mobile,
as they do at New Orleans, while after
| September 1 these same roads intend to
stop shipside delivery at all docks IN
Mobile (not New Orleans) IL Mobile
Will stand for the change Surely this
must have been a misprint.
| This case summed up means there is
terminal charge in the export rate
| Covering switching, transferring or
unloading and wharfage) which charges
| are allowed at other ports without
| question but are to be stopped at Mo-
bile after September l by Mobile and
| Ohio and Southern, and will accomplish
the sole purpose of killing dock de-
| velopment We would invite Mr.. Rus
| sell, yes, we challenge Mr.. Russell, II
he disagrees with this statement, to
| explain, but in writing, how docks can
| be built In Mobile by present river
front owners and from what sources
the revenue will come to sustain them,
| provided he can fool Mobile and the In
| terstate commerce commission on this
SnlpSlQe dellVeTy. Let nlD1 explain nOW
| the money can be raised and interest
paid thereon to build docks to equal
New Orleans and Galveston. which have
| six to ten times our facilities. when
the Mobile and Ohio and Southern
roads deliberately advertise that they
will keep and put in their railroad
| pocketbook the terminal charges In
| cluded in the export rate (and which
| belong to any dock furnishing proper
rf fo If fn 1Gl n
in Galveston can invest his money In
docks and obtain an interest upon his
| investment as is the case with the
men comprising the Galveston Wharf
| company and the port of New Orleans
for the year 1909 can collect s360,662.0S
as wharf revenue, but at Mobile no
| wharfage charge must be collected, 81
will drive the business away, accord
| Ing to the Mobile and Ohio officials.
Are they honest in their stateme hts
| we leave to tho public to decide. No
| one Will invest money in docks at Mo
| bile until this cloud Is removed from
| such an investment and the Mobile and
Ohio and Southern. Mr.. Russell as vice
| president, have done this harm. Is 1t
reasonable to think that, now this state
| OF AFFAIRS is known, the national gov
eminent will continue to give Mobile
| money for harbor, channel and river
| Improvement when 1t is seen that the
port is simply the plaything of few
railroads who can, by spending a pos
sible $5.o00.ooo, buy enough river front
to shut up the port, as the railroads
| have done already at Bridgeport
| Conn. The question has already been
| asked by the national rivers and har-
bcrs committee as to whether the city
and private individuals owned suffi-
Client river front to develop the port
in line with governmental expendi-
lures. The city owns little river front
as compared with New Orleans or as
compared with the needs of our port
and private parties cannot improve
without protection from greedy rail-
road interests. all of which cannot be
concealed from our national govern
uent In the future. What then are we
to expect from the government? Moth
ing.
Our port was greatly benefited by the
Hepburn act passed years ago, which act
did stop rebating, and made the roads
publish rates to the seaboard and observe
! them. By stopping this juggling of rates
from which Mobile suffered, Mobile,
which was advantageously situated. came
nearer getting her proportion of cotton
than she was able to control prior to the
passage of this act We have not yet
gotten all that belongs to us, for q mil
lion bales of cotton is Mobiles fair share,
and the conditions affecting u.s. such as
the Mobile and Ohio and Southern keep
ing out ocean competitor by favoring a
special line and refusing through bills of
lading to a competing line, must be re-
moved before Mobile can come into her
right Publicity will, in the end, accom-
plish this needed reform. the port will
yet be an open port, free to all alike and
with these special favors to a few elim-
mated. and we feel sure some redress is
near at hand We trust that Mr.. Russell
will, furnish his share Of the publicity by
answering the questions previously put to
him. Personally. we do not feel at lIber-
ty, at this moment, to print such data as
we have, for our case Is in the hands of
the Mobile chamber of commerce. If
that body should decide unfavorably to
u.s. of course we must withdraw and &C
knowledge ourselves beaten. but If, on
the other hand, the chamber of commerce
should decide the railroads are wrong,
and hurting Mobile, we feel sure that Mr..
Russell will acknowledge he Is in error.
Either his opinion, or our own should bow
down before the opinion of disinterested
business organization.
In closing, we wish to deny that this is
purely a selfish fight, instead, from a