Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-29
ROADSREPLYTO
MERCHANTS PLEA
Paint of Baltimore Associa-
ton Is Indirect Outcome of
Free-De|ivery Issue.

A series Of denials Of the charges made
IN the complaint Of the Merchants and
Manufacturers Association Of Baltimore
against the Central Railroad Of New Jer-
sey and others is contained In the replies
Of seven railroads made public at the m
terstate commerce commission today. The
Baltimore association, through its petit
ton. is seeking to have established
through routes and joint rates over the
Western Maryland railroad from New
York and Jersey City to Baltimore. It is
hoped by forcing the railroads to furnish
this service that an alleged monopoly Of
the freight between these three points will
be broken, and in that manner force the
railroads to lower their rates. This case
Is an indirect outcome of the action Of the
railroads IN Withdrawing the free store
door delivery service from Baltimore and
Washington.
The roads which have filed their replies
are: The Central Railroad Of New Jer-
sey. the Staten Island Rapid Transit Rail-
way Company and the Northampton and
Bath Railroad Company. each Of which
filed separte replies. and the Philadelphia
and Reading Company. the Gettysburg
and Harrisburg Railway Company. Allan
tic City Railroad Company and the Will
liams Valley Railway Company, which
Joined together in reply.
Bound by Jersey Roads Action.
The Bush Terminal railroad did not
file formal answer, merely informing
the commission that 1t concurred in the
tariffs OF the Central of New Jersey, and
would be bound by the action of that
road. The Hoboken Shore road declares
that it has not been a party to the Cen
trail Of New Jerseys tariff since 1911.
The Railway Valley Railroad Company
also asserts that it will be bound by the
action of the Central of New Jersey.
The Central of New jersey In it's
answer. admits that 1t does not maintain
a through route with joint rates between
and denies that its failure to provide such
a practice is in violation Of its duty to
the petitioner or to the public In gen.
eral. It also admits that 1t has through
routes and joint rates from other points
to Baltimore. but states that the pub
lie interest does not require the estab-
lishment of any other or additional
through routes and joint rates to the
city Of Baltimore"
1t admits that there Is possible physi-
New York to Baltimore. but 1t denies
that such a route is convenient, practi-
cable and feasible. On the contrary, it
alleges that such route involves such
q considerable additional mileage over
that of other routes now established and
available, and is so circuitous. and in
wolves such delays as to be of no benefit
to the public in Baltimore. which public
already has available two through routes
provided with joint rates from Jersey
City and New York on the one hand, to
Baltimore on the other.
Denial in Petition.
This petition denies that it has failed
to establish joint rates and charges
from New York and Jersey City to Bal
timore, In connection with other lines;
denies that it's rates from Drills, N. j..
near Newark, are unreasonable. unjust
or discriminatory, or that its failure
to provide through routes and joint
rates are in violation of law. 1t fur
Their denies that its reason for not
granting the service demanded in the
petition IS because of contract or
agreement between it and the Reading
company and other carriers, dated
June IL. 1898. but alleges that the rea-
son 1t does not establish the through
routes and joint rates now demanded
by the petitioner lis because the pub
lie interest would not be subseryed by
the establishment of the additional
through route. and joint rates thus de-
manded by the petitioner On the
contrary. it alleges that the public in
terest is best subserved by building
up IAN expeditions and efficient trans
portation service by the shortest and
more direct route between New York
and Baltimore. which has long been
established. and the concentration OF
the movement of freight SO lar as
possible, to such route between these
two commercial centers of New York
and Baltimore"
The other replies are along a similar
line, except that in one place the
Staten Island Rapid Transit Company
even denies that there has been or now
is a convenient, practicable or feasible
route from Jersey City and New York
over certain lines named IN the petit
Tsa