The Washington times., 1915-08-11
FREIGHT INCREASES
DENIED TO ROADS
Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page)
ton territory sought a horizontal In
crease In rates. and Is second only to
this case in importance.
Commissions Findings.
The findings of the commission az
summarized are:
Proposed increased carload rates on
grain and grain products considered as
one commodity not justified.
Proposed increase from 10000 pounds
TO 10000 pounds In the minimum car
load weight of grain products justified.
Proposed increased carload rates on
live stock not justified.
Proposed increased carload rates on
packing house products and fresh meats,
except as indicated between points on
the Missouri river not justified.
Proposed increased carload rates on
fertilizer and fertilizer materials not
justified.
Proposed increased rates on bitum-
points, justified The rates on coke here
proposed. which are the same as on
coal, justified.
Proposed increased carload rates on
brewers rice and less-than-carload rates
Proposed increased carload rates on
broom corn not justified.
Proposed increased import rates and
proposed increases in carload minima
from gulf ports justified.
Proposed increased carload rates on
fruits and vegetables justified.
Proposed Increased carload rates on
hay and straw. where not in excess OF
class c, justified
Proposed increased any-quantity
rates on cotton piece goods. and pro-
posed increased carload rates from
points in Texas, not justified"
The railroads contended that the in
n he
steady advance In operating expenses
The carriers based their claim to ad-
ditional revenue upon their financial
needs and the downward tendency OF
the comm odities singled out by them
to bear the proposed increase are
not now carrying their equitable part OF
the costs Of transportation.
Built BY Earnings.
Both contentious were attacked by the
protestants. the shippers. State railwa.
| commissions and individuals. The pro,
testants contended that the carriers hat
built their roads up to a higher standard
out of their earnings, rather than from
capital expenditures. and that this prac
| tice hao mcrsaseo costs.
The commission found that It was In
| contesta Bile that there had been an In
| crease in the ratio or operating costs Il
| income.
| rur instance In 1901 the carriers re.
| lallluu .I.o cents oI every aoiiar Taken
| III. Inc operating eApeiises taxing ou
lhe 10 anu u IraC,ion. IN 1914 no"eNer
| me rat.o Was 80 rc.uccu tuaI the Car
| liers mad above operating expenses Oh
| 40 cents VI odE.4 uoliur. Inns llt
| commission Iound was ouo 10 lncreaseI
| cosls VI u-eralion.
| The commission mado Ito findings o.
fact BeEaraleIy OIL each OF Inc prln
cipai commodities affected by the pro
kVsod mclease, III suin"iaiIzeu IoiAi
.nesu lnuinss are an gwen.
| commissioner uanielS IN his dissent
ing opinion, declares that III hia Judg
mont the railroads affected, lnoluulni
practically all roads from The Missis
sippi river to the Inter-MQuptair
states, have sustained tho burden o.
proof plcaed upon them by the statut
ana are "a rlsnt enulleo 10 increases
III ratea productive or revenue rhr II
exoess ef what they are aeeefdea y,
the majority decision. In separate
opinion. Commissioner Harlan concur
| with him,