Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1913-04-19

fNNh tA'F WV HNt AHFFF HNtNNAhftAN
~ the carriers. and because 10 the
Judgement OF the carriers. their 70
lsiIon 70 competing points 10 the
territory not only justified but re-
quifed them 10 be PIT on the same
rate basis II 10 true that the alb
sence ~ rain for some years has
sloaed up their growth. which prior
20 that time had been rapid and con.
linHous This burden these com
munif.es have been compelled 20
bear and must continue 10 bear
should / deelop that there has been
q permanent change 10 climatic con-
dltlons The effect Of the thought
Is also shown IN the revenues Of
the carriers. but apparently % tho
assumption that the drouRhtst viii
continue for the Indefinite future.
the carriers instead OF sharing the
These climatic conditions have been
emphas.zed BY the respondent lines.
bat they have not undertaken 20
show any other change To- The rela-
tions between the towns LOO question
and other communities that are a.
remain in common point territory
Al these trading centers are still in
competition with one another and
the conditions which caused the
carriers 20 put them on the same
rate bbsls with one another still
burden by Increasing their rates
exist
An attentive examination o. the
record has led No 10 the conclusion
that the carriers have not Justified
the proposed increased rates for
these towns. and have therefore fail
ed 10 meet the burden ~ proof ina
first put into kommon point terri-
posd upon them b. statute When
consequences with the shippers nov
seek 20 relieyg themselves OF the
They regard itfas on especial hard
ship non 10 have higher rates ad-
The carriers. aud that their business
had been adjusted to that rate basis
tory the traffic OF these communl-
ties was substantially less boz vol.
ume than "a this time They con
tend therefore. that II they we're
then entitled 10 common point rates
nre much more entitled 90 them
uoR They also call attention 70
the fact that they we're voluntarily
Put lu common point territory by
ded 10 me burdens that the sue
ccss.ro droughts have pct upon
them Moreover. Il appears that in
some cases the short-line mileage is
Jess now than when they were first
pu' into common point territory
The short-line distance from Kan
sas city 10 San Angelo. for example.
was then s57 miles II Is now 1872
miles From St Louis the short-line
distance was 1869 miles Il Is now
$40 miles There Is another fact
upon which some stress Is laid Most
Of these towns have contributed to
the new construction Of the carriers.
aud In addition have subscribed for
substantial amounts OF bonds Bal
linger paid $4,000 10 the Abilene
& Southern. Brady gave $4,000 In
cash 10 the santa Pc. and In addi-
tlon donated q u It's entire right OF
gay. uA1sh klstrounty and, town
and altj lis lhtIon grounds. at an
additional exptnse of $4,000 San
Angelo contributed 10 the Kansas
city Mexico a Orient 100000 In
money, it also donated It's right OF
way through the county and bought
5000 OF is bonds When the
Santa Re built ~ line from San An
gelo in 1910. san Angelo donated
the right OF way and $4,000 In
cash The droughts have Interior
ed with the payment OF some OF
these amounts in other cases the
carriers have extended the notes.
and In some Instances have cancelled
the pledges n is hut proper 20
state these facts. although We have
attached no inheritance TO them In
reaching the conclusion that the
plan proposed by the respondents.
OF putting theto towns back into DIFF
ierentIal territory. has not been jus
titled of record We find from the
evidence adduced OF record that the
rates proposed by the respondents
on the traffic of the communities In
question are oXcessiye and unreas-
enable and that any rates upon such
traffic for the future In excess OF
the rates on the traffic of adjacent
points Ia the common point terri
tory of Texas viii also be unduly
discriminatory
Tho common point territory Is per
haps uuduly large and We have so In
timatod on various occasions It's
extension has not been favored by
this commission Nevertheless when
the southwestern lines prepare to
narrow rs boundaries they must do
so u fair regard to the rights OF
the communities which they propose
20 retain within The favored area
They have failed 20 do this in these
tariffs They have simply attempt
ed 90 keep Amarillo out OF common
pc M territor, by excluding It's i'm
mediate competitors, overlooking
tn fact that these competitors Of
Amarillo have rights growing out Of
their relation with other communi-
ties that are sim TO remain in com
mon point territory. The difficulty
here IS that the respondent lines
have not gone FAR enough, they
have made no effort to reform the