The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-07-24


miles, against a haul to Birmingham of
only 800 miles.
Table No. 3-The peculiar rate adjust
| nent from interior eastern points appears
to have grown out of design to exempt
| Nashville and Memphis from distinction
which might be made between an all rail
haul and rail and water haul In the
differentials shown In this table the
rates are the same all rail as rail and
water, from interior eastern points and
ports to Chattanooga, Knoxville, Nashville
and Memphis. but to Birmingham interior
all rail rates are made differental high
er than port points; also there is a diff
ferential higher for all rail than rail and
water Tables Nos. A. 5, 6 and show to
what extent this preferential adjustment
effects Birmingham rates and what a
handicap it is in her struggle to develop
a wholesale trade.
Table No. SIN this table the IS classes
have been shown because many manufac-
tured articles bought by our manufacture
ers from Pittsburg territorial points are
| embraced by the lettered classes. 1t will
be seen from these figures that Memphis
| and Nashville as well as New Orleans
and Mobile, enjoy a distinctly lower aver
age rate than does Birmingham, although
our natural advantage of proximity and
competitive forces should reverse this ar
rangement
Table No s-WhiIe the adjustments
shown in this table are not the subject
! of universal complaint as those pre-
ceding it. still these rates are by no means
| fairly adjusted to Birmingham. The al
| legged water competition offered at Mobile
as a reason for lower rates from Louis
Vile, Evansville and Chicago, appear OF
contravene the long and short haul clause
If,ft ,ott t.., IatA n
terstate commerce commission has ruled
| that fake water competition shall not be
accepted as a reason for violating the pro-
visions of the fourth section. The food
products which come under these lettered
| classes move all rail through birmingham
| to Mobile al an average rate from Louis
vile of 90.1, against an average rate to
Birmingham of 32.1; from Evansville to
Mobile, ~ IS. against Evansville to Bir-
mingharg of 80 i; from Chicago to Mobile,
| 40 4 against Chicago to Birmingham OF
| A. Another peculiar feature shown by
E, this table of comparative rates is the
| reversal of hong established primer
pie of decreasing the per ton mile rate as
| the distance increases. Nashville, how
ever. has proven the exception to this
| rule, for although her distance from
Louisville is but 1S7 miles, the rate per
ton mile is .0l5S, against the per ton mile
rate to Birmingham. a distance OF 5sf OF
.O163 or points less This is also true
in a varying degree from Evansville and
Chicago.
Table No. 10-The same general
complaint against the adjustments
shown in the preceding table may also
be made against those shown in this
No consideration has been given TO
Birmingham for any advantage IL mas,
whether in point of proximity, dlstrlb-
uting facilities. or competitive forces
| 4 tfc airlc-
Nashville's 322, Birmingham pays
rate of "a points higher per ton mile
| than does Nashville. This Is not fair
adjustment for it has been shown that
when Birmingham is nearer the point
of origin higher per ton mile rate is
charged in accordance with the estab-
| lished principle of rate making, but
when more distant than its competitor
! 1t is not given the reverse of this-a
relatively lower per ton mile rate but
| in both cases a higher rate.
Rate Adjustment Desired
| I'm view of the foregoing facts de-
ltailing the rate disadvantages. under
which Birmingham labors, we feel JUS
| titled in asking that our rates to re-
| adjust to the following basis:
| Il. From North Atlantic port cities
! and interior eastern points no higher
| than to Nashville.
! - From Virginia cities no higher
than to Montgomery.
! "3. From Ohio and Mississippi river
/ points, such an adjustment as will
recognize our advantageous location
| and distributing facilities. as they have
been recognized at Nashville, Mobile,
Chattanooga and Knoxville.
"a. From Gulf coast points rates
which will conform TO the long and
| short haul section of the act to regu-
| late commerce.
| SO. We are Indifferent as to whether
the proposed adjustment involves a re-
duction of BirminghGm's s rates or an in
crease in rates to the points cited, SO
| long as the determinations are re-
moved and Brmtn gharn is placed on a
rate level with its &c mr. etitors.
"William C. Radcliffe, M. P. North
| ington S w Lee. Harkins Williams,
| II. ". Coffin committee"
e Those Present
| Railroad officials present at the freight
| rate conference yesterday We're: b. F.
Stovall. general agent, Illinois Central
and Central OF Georgia railroad, Birming-
ham; e. X. Bryan, Jr., assistant general
freight agent, Illinois Central railroad,
Memphis, e. d. Mclver, commercial
agent, Alabama Great Southern, Birming-
ham; G.. F. Sustendal. chief clerk to
freight traffic manager, Alabama Great
Southern Birmingham; l.. T.. Chalenor,
freight traffic manager. Seaboard Air
Line railroad, Norfolk; e. T. Wilcox. as
sistant commercial freight agent, Sea-
! board Air Line railroad. Brmin CHAM
| Haiden Millar, freight traffic manager.
Frisco lines, St Louis; c. p. Jackson.
assistant general freight agent, Frisco
Lines. Birmingham; J Fl. Doughty. gen
eral agent Frisco Lines, Birmingham
George F. Macgregor, assistant general
freight agent. Frisco Lines. Memphis
d. +. McDonough, division freight agent,
| Frisco Lines Birmingham: l.. Sewer,
general agent, Alabama Great Southern.
Mobile and Ohio and Southern railways s.
| Birmingham: r. L. Simpson, general
| freight agent Southern railway. Birming-
ham: Randall Clifton, assistant freight
traffic manager, Southern railway
] Washington: y. 3. Wright, general
| freight agent Central OF Georgia railroad
Savannah; Lee Clary, general agent
Louisville and Nashville railroad. Br-
| mingham; C. Il. Co,ipton. freight raffis
manager. Louisville and Nashville, Louis
J VILE: II. A. Poveleite, general freight
agent. Queen and Crescent Route, Cincin-
| natl.
| Members of the Chamber of Co,ufnercf