The Washington times., 1913-08-18
THE RIGHT PLAN OF CAMPAIGN.


Association has come to Washington tS engage a
lawyer and interstate commerce expert to manage
its fight for continuance of free store-door delivery.
1t has enlisted Mr.. John B. Dash whom everybody
III that line of practice knows as skilled and widely
experienced specialist He knows the law and the
decisions under it; perhaps more important yet, he
understands the mind of the interstate commission.
Mr.. Dash has taken up the Baltimore case on
precisely the same lines that The Times, in the be-
ginning, said it must be handled to win. He has
hled with the commission petition in which he
quotes eXactly-the same section of the interstate
commerce law, and exactly the same excerpts from
former decision of the commission, that were pre-
sented in The Times in support of its contention
that this is the last stage in contest between rail-
road and water routes.
The rates to Washington and Baltimore were re-
duced many years ago, by the process of giving free
delivery, in competition with the water routes. That
they were reduced IN ORDER TO OVERCOME the
advantage of the water routes is shown by the fact
that the free delivery privilege was granted ONLY
t. business that could be moved by the competing
water routes. On business from the West-non-
competitive business-the privilege not granted.
Now, The Times pointed out that in the former
case involving free delivery, the commissions opin
ion held that this privilege was granted at these Two
cities in order to meet water competition 1t quoted
from the commissions report on this point:
There are suggestions in the record that delivery
and collection servce) has been instituted and main
tanned lat Batmore) of competition against
the boat lines trading from Boston, New York. and
Philadelphia.
Mr.. Daish, in his new petition, quotes that precise
language. He views it precisely as The Times did
as the commissions recognition of the fact that the
water competition issue was in the case.
The Times also quoted the paragraph of the
interstate commerce law concerning reductions of
rates by railroads to meet water competition. That
paragraph reads
Whenever a carrier by railroad shall in compe-
tition with water reduce the on
the carriage of species of freight from
petitive points, it shall be permitted increase
such rates unless after hearing by the Com
mercc Commission shall be such proposed
increase rests changed conditions other than the
elimination of water competition.
And Mr. Daish likewise follows The Times in
quoting that paragraph, and pointing out its relation
to the present case!
The Times urged that the Washington and Balt-
more cases were in effect the same and that the two
cities business interests ought to make common
cause. 1t protested that mistake had originally
been made in alleging behalf of Washington
that there was discrimination against this city, in
canceling the delivery privilege here while leaving
il in force in Baltimore. The case being tried as
THE TWO TOWNS, the commission ordered the
discrimination removed, and the railroads removed
il, not by restoring free delivery here but by DIS
CONTINUING 1T IN BALTIMORE.
The real, vital, underlying issue, involving water
competition, never pressed or recognized in the
original Washington case.
These hii.gs The Times pointed out, in the hope
dt they would be useful to the business interests
of this city in making their fight For its pains The
Times denounced by Maurice D. Rosenberg
counsel of the Retail Merchants Association who
had handled the ginal for that organization
ESteemng that The Times discussion refec-
ton on his own conduct of the case-Mr.
Rosenberg at a conference with officials of
that organization declared that The Times was
entitled to no consideration and ought to be
drummed out of town. Likewise, Mr. Rosenberg
f ind The Times article "!amnably scandalous"
Perhaps it was. If Mr.. Rosenberg however, will
ask the opinion of Mr.. Daish, or of any member of
the Interstate Commission, he will learn that The
Times article knew what it was talking about 1t
laid down exactly the view Of rhis case that is now
adopted by expert lawyer in such litigatons The
c-ief difficulty with the situation as now presented
is that that expert lawyer is working for Baltimore
instead of Washington.
However, Mr.. Daish-agan following the line
of suggestions presented by The Times-today made
public letter addressed by him to the Retail Mer-
chants Association, strongly recommending that
Washington cooperate with Baltimore in handling
the whole question. Again Mr.. Daish is right, and
again The Times is vindcated by the judgment of
man thoroughly competent to Judge
Mr. Daish, as attorney for the Baltimore business
interests is likely to win the case for both Wash
ington and Baltimore, and :hus reverse the unfortu-
nate result of its former conduct when it was lost
for both Washington and Baltimore.
Cattv