New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-29
COMMERCE Commission
STRIKES At COAL TRUST
Continued from first page.

| these extra charges are made for the
sole purpose Of increasing the cost OF
, transportation. End that competitors Of
I the company who are I'm the good graccs
Of the coal trust do not have TO pay
these switching charges. One instance
pointed out is charge Of 80 GEMS a ton
for hauling coal only five thousand feet
to make connection with the Central
Railroad OF New jersey The complaint
continues:
Defendant has Transported the same char
acter OF product to tho same destinations
for favored shippers at rate Whlch dlh
not include the charges Of switching. These
acts constitute an undue or unreasonaD'e
prejudice or disadvantage to the complain
ant discriminatory and in violation OF the
law.
The defendant has performed service
more expensive for competitors animated
with the railroads constituting the anthra-
cite coal trust at much less than has been
exacted Of this defendant. In some m
stances. as complainant believes, the
switching or transfer charges nave De"h
absorbed in the through Joint rate.
Because Of these unjust and discrlmhha-
tory acts the complainant has been uhape
TO secure equality Of conditions Win com,
petitors constituting the coal trust, ana
result.
The complaint then takes up the queS-
ton OF the railroads refusal to keep
open for public inspection the schedules
If the rates charged. The complainant
AYERS that il appealed to the highest
officials Of the road, and after much In
convenience. was referred to the coal
company owned by the railroad-a COM
petitor-fOr the information, and then
failed to get it. In this connection II
is charged that the railroad did not
have the same rate for all the shippers.
I'm regard to the allegation that the
railroad Improperly routed shipments
the complainant says that the long
routes were selected so that extra
charges might be collected. This was
possible, the bill explains. because Of
the inexperience OF the complainant
Building OF Lackswanna Dams.
The complaint makes the charge that
the railroad deliberately built dams on
the stream used a. wash the complain
ants coal for the purpose of destroying
It's plant" Tho company owned lower
riparian rights, the bill sets forth, ana
the Lackawanna company bullt TWO
Large dams and diverted the course or
the stream. 80 that ii cmptied into
mine. rendering practically useless the
washery in question.
Another allegation is that in 1900
culm bank belonging to the Lackawanna
company and adjoining the complain
ants washery became ignited ana
threatened the destruction OF the entire
contiguous banks. but when repre-
sentative Of the Marian Coal company
complained he was told that the fire
was nobody's business" As a result Of
the fire 1900 tons Of the companys
material was burned and $3.50 was eX-
pondcd in lighting the fire in self-prJ-
lection
Most OF the evidence In the case has
been adduced, and the interstate Com
mcrce Commission now has ii under con-
sheraton. II is expected that de
cision viii BE- announced in the near
future
In many aspects. especially IN 'he
principles involved, the case IL similar TO
The Meeker IL 60. complaint against the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, IN
which the commission awarded repari-
ton amounting To more than 100000.
--~-------