The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-11-30
SAY PROPOSED.
RATE IS UNF A|R
Shippers Declare Suggested In
crease in Tariffs Unjust
ly Distributd.
DIFFERENT WHEN REBATE
SYSTEM WAS In VOGUE
COnsigners Often Received Re-
turn of Large Percent
age of Charges.

WASHINGTON, Nov 2o-Fiye ex.
pcrls for the shippers testified today be-
fore the interstate commerce commission
In It's investigation OF the proposed rate
increases, On adjournment until tonor-
row the commission announced that the
arguments Of the eastern and western
increase cases. consolidated, would be
heard December 0, Today's testimony
tended TO show that the proposed in
creases. which tho roads claim Will in
vclve net additional revenue Of s27-
600 600 in the official classification ter
rltory. extending from New England to
me Mississippi river and north OF the
Ohio and Potomac, were unjust and un-
fairly distributed. The only witness who
did not agree to the unfairness OF the
rates was c. c. McKain of New York
City. chairman of the Trunk Line assoc
cisLion, who was called 10 explain
pamphlet which he prepared for the rail
roads MS an argument for tho increase.
When Rebates Were Common.
Edward 6. Orr Of st. Louis testified
that rebates were general In St louis
on the first three classes OF freight In
or 40 per cent Of the standard rates.
D. o. ives OF Boston represented shin.
ping interests In New York, New Eng
land, Pcnnsylvania. New Jersey, Mary
bate had been abolished cffectually. but
that when the practice existed ths re-
bates reached 80 or 40 per cent He
caused s, laughter when he admitted that
connected all the shippers certainly
did not get The benefit OF rebates. MI
Ives maintained that the railroad men
were sincerely trying to do away ubso-
lutcly with preferences whether rcbnJee
or otherwise.
The preferences that exist today arc
In the tariffs ihcmselves7" asked Chair
man Knapp.
bsolnlciy," replied the witness.
And the Instances OF secret depart
nres from the published tariffs are In
More than that; they are accidental
replied Mr.. Ives
Contending that II was unjust to at
tempt blanket advance In class rates
from the scaboard 10 western territory
Mr.. Ives maintained that d 20 per cent
advance from Chicago 10 Illinois and
Wisconsin and west OF the Mississippi
would not oquaize n 20 per cent advance
from scaboard 10 Illinois.
Mr.. Ives called attention TO lake and
rail advances aSgregating from 10 TO 20
per cent I'm the last decade. in addition
to the tonnage in classification, He
claimed that tho proposed horizontal in
crease Is arbitrary. y
Says Plan Is Unjust.
The 20 per cent advance on tho first
1--WE classes, declared Mr. Ives while an
n,emplatcd: for he said, large addi-
tional burdens arc laid upon the lake
transportation which does not even have
the Justification OF amy extraordinary In
crease in wages.
ME Ives coutcndcd that proposed hori-
zontal Increases dislort existing trade
rclations:. that II ls unjust to Impose the
burden OF the whole rate on % per cent
OF the traffic. which only result In
less freight between the east and the
west. with it's accompanying localization.
,cssenIng OF competition and ultimate in
,.cense in the cost To the consumer foI
l&yopd the initial rate increase