The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-17
A NJ { Nd MENT TO
BAGGAGE BILL
Gives Railroads Right to Grant
Exclusive Through-Chcck-
ing Privilege.
RICHMOND OPPOSES LAW
w. T .Dabney Declares That
There Is No Local Demand
for Change in System.

After suffering series of delays
Senator Fcatherston's baggage bill was
| reported with an amendment yesterday
afternoon by the Senate Committee on
| Roads and Internal Navigation. The
bill owed its origin to transfer dinicul
ties In the city of Lynchburg. where,
it IS contcndcd. the Long Transfer
Company enjoys an unfair monopoly in
the business OF transferring baggag
from the railway stations. 1t has an
important local application. the Rich
mond Transfer Company occupying a
similar position of advantage.
Tbs amendment. which was intro
duced by Senator Fentherston, excerpts
the checking OF baggage from the list
OF services which it prohibits the rail-
road companies from contracting out TO
any one company. The proposed law.
in Its amended form. will require tho
railroads TO accord the same privileges
to all transfer companies. under proper
restrictions and bonds. and Will at the
same time permit ii to make such eN-
elusive contract for the through cheek
ing of baggage at the hotels or resi-
dences of travellers as II may dc IN
wise. The amendment was introduced
to remove the objection of the railroads
that to permit II number OF competing
companies to check baggage through
from residence TO destination woulc
result In endless confusion and would
not work out In practice.
No Demand for Inv.
W. T. Dnbney. business manager OF
the Richmond Chamber OF Commerce.
opposed the Enactment OF the Law on
the ground that there was no demand
for 1t by the travelling public. The
Richmond Branch OF the Travellers
Protective Association. he said had
declined to indorsc H. He quoted the
president OF the largest shoe rnnnufac-
turing plant IN Lynchburg, employing
hundreds OF travelling men. that there
was no demand FOR the proposed law on
the part OF his nj an. The situation In
Richmond. lie said, was wholly satisfac-
tory to the public. and to interfere with
IL would be to weaken the service. II
there are abuses, the city Council, he
thought having exclusive Jurisdiction
over the streets of the city Was the
proper body before which 10 seek re-
dress
Much the same argument was pre-
scented ny c. b. Lorraine, general bag
gage agent Of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway. To grant equal privileges TO
an Indefinite number OF Competing COM
panies would cripple the present ad-
mirabl. service. he said. and tne rail-
road VIII never be a party to such au
agreement.
No Charge for Contract.
y significant fact brought out at the
hearing was the statement made by
Mr.. Lorraine that no charge whatever
is made by the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway for the exclusive contract /,
grants to the Richmond Transfer Com
pany. The company merely stipulates
that the best equipment is TO be used
by tho transfer company and that IN ?
life OF the contract is limited 10 thu
duration OF efficient service il can lie
abrugated at thirty days notice,
The bill was further opposed by At
torney Harper. OF Lynchhurg who re
gard I'd tho exclusive contract as the
only solution Of the transfer problem.
Responsible service he thought, was
Impossible without it short arEH-
mcnt in favor OF tho bill was made
Senator Fca thcrston His statements
we're Endorsed by member OF the
United Commercial Travellers. who as
serted that a largo number OF travelling
men are dissatisfied with the present
state of affairs.