The Washington times., 1915-07-13
Interstate Commerce .Commis.
sion Asked to Dismiss Mer-
chants Complaint.
SEE NO WATER COMPETITION
Brief Charges Washington Is
Attempting to Get Advantage
Over Baltimore.

Maintaining that water competition
does not compel as low commodity rates
to Washington as to the Virginia cities,
counsel for the Baltimore and Ohio.
PENNSYLVANIA and other railroads, scrv-
ing Washington from the North and
East filed a brief with the Interstate
commerce commission today urging dis
nnissal OF the complaint brought by the
Washington Chamber OF Commerce the
Retail Merchants Association and near
ly 15o Individual business men, firms and
corporations
The brief attacks the right Of the COM
plainants to bring the case. urging that
all OF the issues involved were decided
in the storedoor delivery and other
Chamber Of Commerce cases. and the
complaint Of o. J. DeMoll and others.
when the commission found class rates
to Washington to be reasonable.
The railroads maintain that while the
present case is aimed at commodity
rates, the complaint really attacks the
rate relationship between the Virginia
cities and Northern groups. They de-
clare the commission refused to con-
slider this rate relationship when refus-
ing a rehearing on the storedoor cases.
Call Rates Justified.
The brief filed by w. c. Coleman on
~ DO
r. d. Mckenney and w. e. Carpenter
on behalf Of the Pennsylvania railroad.
the Pennsylvania Company. the Phila-
delphia. Baltimore and Washington. the
New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk.
and the Long Island railroad, asserts
that higher rates to Washington than TO
Petersburg. Fredericksburg and kich-
mond are Justified. because Washington
rates are not water competitive rates.
Washington. II Is declared. belongs
naturally and by custom and usage TO
the Northern group of cities, with Baitl-
more as it's chief competitor, and II -
alleged Washington, while seeking the
same rates as those to the virginia
cities, Is really trying to get Al au-
vantage over Baltimore, its closest COM
petitor.
Rates to Richmond. Fredericksburg.
and Petersburg are based the brief
sets forth. on the Norfolk rate whlch
was made low to meet direct water
competition. and Washington has no
place in the group.
Violation OF the fourth section OF the
interstate commerce act in lower rates
to Norfolk and Virginia cities. than ap-
DIV to shorter hauls to Was hington, the
brief declares. was authorized by the
Interstate Commerce Commission In the
Norfolk" case. when all rail rates were
reduced to the water rate.
Faster To Capital.
Water competition with other Vir-
ginia cities is partially offset by the
greater rapidity Of railway services,
1t is asserted, and the faster railway
service to Washington entirely Off
| setts the effect of water rates At
| tention is called to the fact that
from New York to Richmond Is 444
miles by water and 343 miles by rail.
and to Washington 524 miles by water
and but 227 by rail.
1t Is alleged that Richmond Is a big
| jobbing center. while jobbing opera
tions in Washington are much less.
and attention Is called to the fact
that not a single jobber appeared as
| witness In the case.
The brief likewise asks the commits
sion to consider that while the NOM
IEal complalnants IN the case were
named, II seemed the Freight Audit
| and Adjustment Company was the
. real complainant.
In conclusion the railroad attorneys
say the complatnants produced but
| two witnesses besides the Freight
Audit and Adjustment Company men.
! and that these witnesses testified to
practically nothing except as to ig-
! ures to serve as basis for repara-
| ton claims.