Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-03-26

without any raise in rates. The in
creased cost of'delivery, he declared, on
direct examination, was one of the rea-
sons for wanting to abolish the free
store-door delivery practice.
Cost of Delivery System.
The witness gave the amounts paid by
the railroad to the express company for
delivery, beginning with 1905, in which
year it was 1856; in 1908 it was $40. $50;
in 1907, $50, 1872; in $685. $50, 963; in 1909.
$43,71; more than S44,sOO in 1910 and
s49,614 in 1911 He declared the railroads
had been compelled to assume additional
expenses for the payment of clerks and
labor in connection with the free delivery
because the express company said 1t
couldn't haul the freight unless the rail-
road bore these charges. He declared that
the Knox company has claimed for some
time that it was doing this hauling at
loss.
The witness declared the reason the
was that the railroads had been unable
to increase the warehouse facilities
there. and further that there was water
competition.
On cross-examination he declared the
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.
Attorney Hanes then examined the
witness and attempted to show that
the store-door delivery was not free,
but was included in the freight tariffs.
Mr.. Hanes parieyed with the witness
in an effort to get the words free
delivery" from the record. Mr. Wright
said it was mot paid for by the pub
lic"
Then, Mr.. Wright, the railroad is
liable under interstate commerce act
for Relating" said Mr.. Hanes, who
pursued his questions further.
4 don't think there is any use try
ing to put a catch question at this
time" Mr.. Wright asserted.
Commissioner Marble interrupted. He
declared he thought it was a question for
the commission to answer.
Il don't think you will be able to get
any admission out of Mr. Wright at this
time. he said.
The question was passed.
In Interest of Merchants.
Mr. Wright was asked by Chaplin
Brown for the Chamber of Commerce. IL
the adjustment CT the free delivery
wouldn't throw an additional cost on the
merchants.
Witness said he assumed it would
Continuing, Mr.. Brown asked the wit
ness If the railroads contemplated abol-
1Shng 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
lie asserted, however, that il the prac-
tlce We're to be abolished in Washington
Baltimore would be attacked.
Mr.. Brown asked, If the practice
We're abolished in Washington and not in
Baltimore. If 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 questions.
On redirect examination by Mr.
Bikle, Mr.. Wright asserted the Penn
sylvania railroad had spent $4,000, 900
on improving freight facilities in
Washington since 1902
Mr.. Brown asked the witness if he
knew how much the United States had
spent to improve railroad facilities in
Washington.
Witness said he didn't know.
The witness was then excused and Mr..
Bike announced that the Pennsylvania
company would rest its case there.
4