The Washington herald., 1913-03-27

Hanes. Mr.. Bowie declared he thought
the change would benefit the Pennsylva-
mia Railroad: Mr.. Bowie, in answer to
questions. asserted that he did not be-
lieve the railroad could continue the
practice on account Of the advanced
cost Of delivery. He further thought the
merchants would lose nothing. As many
Of them would then have their own
equipment for moving their freight.
John L. Newbold, for the Merchants
Transfer Company, was asked by Exam
liner Elder to submit Q list Of the COM
pany's stockholders.
Il shall be very glad to do 60" he
said.
Answering a question Of Examiner Mar
bic. Mr.. Bowie declared the service In
Washington was established after that
in Baltimore. The witness was then dis
missed. 81.
Mr. Bikle then offered for inclusion In
tho, records tariffs which included the
store-door delivery.
Wright Testihes.
Robert c. Wright. freight trafiic mana
ger OF the Pennsylvania system, said
the FREQ delivery service was inausurated
without any raise in rates Tho increased
cost of delivery. he declared. on direct
examination. was one Of the reasons for
wanting to abolish the free store-door
delivery practice.
The witness gave the amounts paid by
the railroad to the express company for
delivery, beginning with 1906, in which
year It was Ss5,b3s: in 1905 It was Sa2.b3o;
in 1907. ss.1s2; in 1893. sss.se3; in 1909.
s4371; more than $A.soo in 1910. and
$40. .el4 in 1911 He declared the railroads
had been compelled to assume additional
expenses for tho payment OF clerks and
labor in connection with tho FREQ delivery
because tho express company said It
couldn't haul tho freight unless the rail-
road bore these oharges He declared
that the Knox company has claimed for
some time that It was doing this hauling
at a loss
Tho witness declared the reason tho
free delivery was continued in Baltimore
was that the railroads had been unable
to increase tho warehouse facilities
there. and further that there was water
competition.
On cross-examination. he declared tho
boat lines delivered their freight free.
He also asserted that the railroads had
not been compelled TO extend their de-
livery limits in Baltimore. as they had in
Washington.
Mr.. Wright was asked by Chaplin
Brown, for the Chamber OF Commerce, II
tho discontinuance OF the free delivery
wouldn't throw an additional cost on the
Witness said he assumed II would.
Continuing. Mr.. Brown asked the wit
ness II the railroads contemplated abol-
ishing the free delivery in Baltimore.
Witness replied he did not think rail-
roads would want to disturb business in
Baltimore any more than in Washington.
He asserted. however. that II the prac-
tice were TO be abolished in Washington. |
Baltimore would be attacked.
Mr.. Brown asked II the practice were |
abolished in Washington and not in
Baltimore, II the merchants OF the latter |
city would be able to sell goods cheaper |
between Washington and Baltimore.
The witness did not attempt to answer /
the question.
Millions Spent.
On redirect examination by Mr. Bike, |
Mr.. Wright asserted the Pennsylvania |
Railroad had spent s.5Ga.ooo on improv-
ing freight facilities in Washington since
1907
Mr. Brown asked the witness II he
knew how much the United States had
spent to improve railroad facilities in
Wa ashinCton.
Witness said he didn't know.
The witness was then excused. and Mr..
Bikls announced that the Pennsylvania
would rest its case there.
A s. Bowie, for the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad. said they delivered
through the Blue Line Transfer. which is
part Of the road. He said tho transfer
had met with increa sed cost OF operation
II its delivery. He declared that its tes-
imony would be a repetition OF the Penn
'ylvania's witness and would there rest
is case. II
Opposing counsel wanted to know the
,ost of operation Of the Blue Line Trans
er. James c. Brown. manager of that
ransfer company OF Washington and
Baltimore. declared II has cost about
5000 a year to run the service in Wash
ngton. He said his company has lost
bout $1,000 year on account OF the
rec delivery feature
The railroads here rested their case.
). W. Smith. acting under instructions
rom the Postmaster General, filed a pro-
est against the adjustment of the free
SAW LINCOLN SHOT.