The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-07-27
REVISION OF PORT
TARIFFS ORDERED
Commerce Board Calls Light
erage and Storage Rates
Ambiguous.
ROADS GAIN FEW POINTS

WASHINGTON. July 28.-An important
decision affecting proposed changes in
iighterase and storage charges and prac-
tees OF railroads at the port Of New
York VA handed down by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission to-day.
The railroads sought to obtain in
creased rates for lighterage service. stor-
age and other facilities at the New Fork
terminals. Some Of the advantages
sought we're allowed. but the majority
were rejected.
The commission suggested that the
railroads using the New York terminals
should make a thorough revision OF their
tariffs, declaring that the tariffs under
discussion were ambiguous as to intent,
that they bore evidence OF carelessness
In their preparation and insisted that
they must be withdrawn and rewritten.
In q general way the case decided to-
day was based on application by tn.
railroads entering New York from the
West for authority to Increase rates or
to reduce service performed under pres
ent rates In connection with the delivery
and receipt Of freight at the New York
terminals.
Free Storage Cut.
For example. the railroads to
reouce the period Of free storage on the
Jersey shore from ten to five days as TO
uohest,c inbound freight for delivery at
new YORK. Authority to make this
change was granted. The commission
also allowed the railroads to make an
increase charge of one cent a hundred
pounds Tor each ten DAYS or fraction
tnereoi Tor storage on the Jersey shore
OF freight for New York delivery after
reduced free storage period.
Inc commission refused to permit the
rairoads to reduce the period OF free
storage on the Jersey shore from ten 10
nVe rays FOR domestic Inbound freirh.
destined for coastwise transshipunnt /,
Also withheld authority for a minimum
charse OF ~ for each lot Of westbound
less than carload freight lightered or
noateo with carload lots or more OF
nghterase free freight. 1t also reiec,ed
the proposed increased charges for tow
ING ireient to certain points outside OF
.ree ilshterage limits. Other concessions
sousnt py the railroads that were either
rejected or allowed by the commIssion
are as follows:
Increased charges for hand
ing ana storing heavy iron and steel
aruc'es' cooperage stock and save 4
stone JUSTIFIED. "eA
foposed Increased charges for s.ak-
ins' wiring or Cheating shipments OF
iun.per. telegraph poles; justified.
reduction of period of free
storage at railroad pier stations OF do
mes'ic inbound freight from three 70
TWO dANs MOI f,tS.,a.l
Proposed reduction OF IRE. s,orap. .,
EXPORT less tran carload freight at rail.
road pier stations from ten TO five DAYS.
not justified.
Trading Charges Hit.
Proposed charge for loading to or
unloading from lighters at other than
station piers or vessels OF the carriers
not justified.
Proposed discontinuance Of allowance
10 shippers or consignees for l,ading and
unloading cars on floats not justified
proposed increased charges for light
ering heavy articles: not justified.
proposed increase OF minimum Weigh
from 1000 to 1000 pounds for free
lghterage OF dressed poultry, butter
and eggs not justified.
As to proposed increased rates IN sup
port or wh!oa no testimony was offered
the respondents have not sustained the
burden OF proof imposed upon them by
law. and such Increased ratos are no,
Justified. according 10 the commission.
The commission suggested in its opin-
Ion that the problem presented by term,.
ma conditions at New York was very
p%erplexing.
Many OF the circumstances and con-
ditions which affect the transportation
service at New York have no counter
part in the United States" aid the
opinion. Comparisons with service a,
other cities are therefore difficult. Thu
record does not Justify any conclusions
as TO whether the terminal service rem
dered by the carriers a, New York as n
whole is unJustly discriminatory as
compared with terminal service at other
cities