Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1916-08-22
SHALL GEORGIA REGULATE
GEORGIA FREIGHT Rates?
Railroad Witness Contends
That Federal Regulation
Should Be Controlling

Shall the interstate freight rates Of
Georgia be fixed by the Georgia railroad
commission. or shall they be fixed by the
interstate commerce commission?
The testimony given Monday by Ran
dali Clifton, assistant freight traffic
manager of the Southern railroad, in
the hearing by the railroad commission
of the petition OF the railroads of Geor-
gia for a general revision of Georgia in
trastate freight rates. led squarely up to
this question.
Mr.. Clifton was contending, as he has
contended since he took the stand, that
the rates of one state cannot be fairly
compared with the rates of another
state, because the rates of a state are
subject to local political pressure. He
was contending that the only fair basis
OF comparing the rates of state is
with the interstate rates in that ter
ritory, as fixed by the interstate COM
merce commission.
At this point Attorney W. A. VIM
bish, chief counsel for the Georgia Slip
pers association, which is resisting the
increases proposed by the railroads, de-
veloped by questions that Mr.. Clifton
believes the interstate rates of the sew
eral southeastern states should be sub
stantially the same, and that the STAN
dard by which they should be fixed is
the standard laid down by the inter-
state commerce commission for inter-
state rates in the southeastern terri
tory.
Then, If that be your contention, Of
what use is a state commission in reg
ulating intrastate freight rates?" in
quired Attorney Wimbish.
To this question Attorney Merrill
Galloway, chief counsel for the rail-
roads, Immediately and strenuously OBJ
jected, with the result that Mr.. Clifton
did not answer the question.
"Then If the rates you propose in
Georgia are higher than existing rates
In Virginia, North Carolina and South
Carolina, how are you going to per-
suade Georgia shippers that they ought
to pay the increased rates you propose?"
inquired c. Murphy Gambler, chairman
of the commission.
In reply to this question, Mr.. Clifton
said the railroads were going to petit
ton the commissions of those states for
an increase, as soon as the Georgia
commission decides the petition in this
case. In other words, If the Georgia
commission authorizes advances in
Georgia, then the railroads will use
that as an argument why the commits
sions of other southeastern states
should authorize advances in those
states.
= And whatever your ionors decide IN
this case, whether for or against the
railroads, will carry great weight IN
the other states" observed Attorney
Galloway.
At this point the hearing recessed un-
til o'clock.
After showing the theory on which
the railroads constructed their proposed
scale of class rates to be charged in
parison of Georgia rates. present and
proposed, with rates in Virginia, North
Carolina and South Carolina.
He admitted that the scale of rates
proposed in Georgia is higher than ex-
listing rates in those three states, but
he contended that Georgia rates are too
low, and always have been too low, and
have influenced the making of rates in
other states. He cited various agita-
lions of the subject of freight rates in
Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro-
lima and Alabama, and claimed that in
nearly every case where shippers in
those states have complained of intca-
state rates they have cited. Georgia
rates as an argument why the rates In
those states should be reduced.
This brought Mr.. Clifton to his con-
tention that rates in one state cannot
be fairly compared with the rates of
another state, and to his contention
that rates in all the southeastern states
should be substantially the same. and
should be fixed according to a standard
laid down by the interstate commerce
commission. 1t was at this point that
Attorney Wimbish asked his question,
above quoted, as to why they need for n
state commission?
Continuing, Mr.. Clifton said it is very
hard to convince a shipper in one state
that he should pay higher rate for a
similar service than a shipper pays in
an adjoining state.