The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1911-03-23


introstate business. The appOrtion-
ment rs made upon the basis OF mas
Senger miles. excluding from the io-
raState revenue that derived from the
Interstate passengers who buy reduced
rate tickets Co Alexandria and travel
over the line TO points beyond mo
STATE. II shows that the number of
miles travelled by interstate Dassar-
SerS - b.2SV,Sll, as against 31965459
travelled by all passengers Tho il,
traState passenger mileage Therefor,
constitutes 2O.59 per cent. of the on
tire passenger mileage. BY this tabIcI
Ine company undertakes to demon
Strate that il did its intrastate b,,si
ness FOR the year 1909 NJ a Ioss 81
"ehcit. OF S1S,S23.1S. A casual glance
NJ the table. however. shows that or
ms alleged deficit $1O.5S6.5q is m
loss on lntrastate freight business. he
f frois, tne entire revenue derived from
tTelSht business as shown by that ia
pie. is S77,S70.SO, while the enti~e
arelgnt expense, as shown thereby is
SoS'45f.S9. While these figures. if as
arranged, they fairly exhibit the true
condition of affairs, might Justify an
application for an increase i'm the in
Crdstate freight rates, they afford no
Justlhcation whatever for LAYING an
auuluonal burden upon the passenger
SiaIhC. Inasmuch as this commission
mas never reduced the freight rates
upon this line, and these intrastatc
irelght rates have been voluntarily NM
IN by the company without let or him
orance from any public authority, we
nlust assume that they are made to
meet competition, or that for some
other reason they are entirely salts
factory to the company. We have
then, after deduCting this apparent
loss 10 on freight, an apparent loss of
SS,236.57 on intrastate passenger bus
mess for the year referred to II
seems plain to us, however, that this
loss Is only apparent, for il also ap-
pears from that statement that the
hi estate passenger train revenue is
crculted with only SO per cent. Of the
gross earnings Of $62.1O9.O7 for car
/ rying the United States mail. or So
1898. and such intrastate passenger
train revenue is only credited with
per cent. OF the gross earnings of
$llS,Sl 4.S6 for carrying express mat
ter or $1,12S.S9, while the expense of
carrying such intrastate mail and ex-.
! press is charged on the basis of intra-
state passenger mileage with 2O.59 per
cent. OF the expense of doing that hus-
mess In other words. the figures.
when analysed, show that while the
! intrastate earnings on United States
| mail are only credited with $2.236.93
those earnings are charged with 81
| 40 as the expense of doing that bus
| mess. The same error is repeated in
/ dealing with the express revenue for
/ while the intrastate revenue is only
/ credited with S7,12S.S9, II is charged
| with 2O.59 per cent. of the expense of
/ doing the business. or Sl4TS35O With
these figures revised and charging the
! lntraState passenger train revenue
/ with expenses based upon the revenue
| received. or 80 per cent, the differ
| ence in favor Of the interstate revenue
on United States mail is $6.375.17, and
on the same basis charging express
revenue with per cent. OF the ex-
pense Of doing it, the difference in
favor of the intrastate revenue on eX-
press business is $1O.475.53. So that
the apparent deficit Of S323657 above
referred TO on passenger train revenue
/ is Cancelled, and accepting the figures
OF the company. and fairly analyzing
them, a profit upon passenger train
! intrastate business is shown, amount
ing TO Sl5; Sl4.1S. That the results
here stated may be clearly appre-
| hended, the said statement filed by
| the company, together with an addi-
/ tiOnal statement relating TO the United
states mail and express revenue and
! expenses. are hereto appended as a
! part of this Cp.nion.
Another Unfair Charge
There is in this table another item
/ charged against the intrastate freight
/ revenue which should not be over
! looked. That revenue is charged with
| Is per cent OF the gross intrastate
! freight revenue as the excess of the
/ expense OF doing the local freight
/ business over the average business
amounting TO $11,24S.54. The theory
! upon which this charge is made is
/ mat II costs more TO do intrastatp
/ freight business than il does to do
/ the entire freight business. If this be
admitted to be true il would seem
/ that at least in the case of this rail
road such additional expense has been
fully provided for without the addi-
! ton Of this arbitrary and estimated
charge. For it appears from the evil
/ dence submitted by the company that
although the iutrastate freight consti-
tutes only BIS per cent. of the total
tonnage, Yet il has already been
charged I'm that statement with 9.36
per cent of the expense of doing the
total freight business. and that while
the average revenue per ton from all
business is 90 cents, the average from
lntrastate is so cents per ton. Ii fur
ther appears from the evidence that
the intrastate freight rates are about
90 per cent. greater in revenue Dar
ton mile. SO that il would seem that
the additional expense of doing the
lntrastate freight business has already
been provided for by this company by
such expense charged and such high
er freight rates.
Failed TO Show COnfscation.
We believe. therefore, that the ia
bic OF figures presented by the COM
pany. and relied upon to demonstrate
its proposition that the present two
cent per mile maximum rate for in
uaState passengers is confiscatory. so
far from sustaining that allegation
quite plainly demonstrates that there
is small profit and not deficit aris-
ing from this class Of business
The question which we are to CON
slider. however is whether such rate
yields fair and reasonable profit TO
the company without imposing undue
hardshlps upon the travelling public
IfH Ii broad view Of the railway
n9SSAthis State, and having al
la.Shed a standard maxi
and one-half cents
Ifae .dush.ion
mona, FrederAr fcVTH2E and Potomac