Tensas gazette. [volume] (St. Joseph, La.) 1886-current, 1921-02-18
Reply to Mr.. Perkins.


st. Joseph, La, Feb. 18th, 1921.
Mr.. E. C. Perkins, Vice Pres.
Traffic Department,
st. Louis, Mo.
Dear SIR
have your favor of the 9Th inst.
had seen in the papers some account
of the Natchez rate case, but did not
know to what extent the interests
of our community was affected by
this case.
In as much as your patrons at st.
Joseph are the ones who pay the
freight, it would appear that we
should have been given a chance to
present our side of the question be-
fore these enormous advances were
made. l cannot believe that you think
a rate Of 63c cwt. on native hay In
less than car load lots, which is we
think about $1,000 ton, fair and
reasonable rate for haul of less than
seventy five miles between Vicksburg
and st. Joseph. Neither can / think
you will hold that it is reasonable
to charge the same rate on hay as on
candy and higher rate on hay than
on coffee, sugar, rice and molases.
Such an adjustment as this seems alb
.viu.e.y ..Iea.o-aLie AID 1 do not
believe 1t could be JustlIled before
any court.
did not understand that there
was anything in the proceedings to
prevent the carrier from continuing
q less than car load special rate
on commodities, if they desired to do
so. Your suggestion that grain and
grain products should be handled in
carload quantities is not practicable.
The minimum carload now is 10000
lbs, and where a larger car is fur
nished, $4,000 lbs. Few dealers at
smaller points are in a position to
handle so much corn or corn meal,
because these are perishabIa articles
and liable to spoil, particularly in
warm weather, before they could be
disposed of.
In addition to this, it does seem
to me that there should be some reas-
enable difference between the car
load and the less than carload rate
on these articles as there has always
been for many years in past. In CIV
ing this tremendous advantage to the
large dealer, the carriers are afford
ing him an unfair advantage over
the smaller dealer, who has a right to
the same rate as tie larger dealer, plus
the difference in the cost of handling,
which we realize is somewhat greater
on less than carloads than on carload
shipments, but not from 200 to 800
per cent.
This proposed adjustment seems to
me to be a Discriminate in favor
of the large dealer against the small
er one by the carriers. Our people
are by no means satisfied with this
adjustment. On the contrary, it seems
to them to be a great hardship, par
ticularly under the existing depressed
business conditions which are we'll
known to your company. These pro-
posed rates on grain and grain pro-
ducts, will make it impossible for
many small cotton raisers to cult
vate their lands, and will add to the
cost of grain and hay from 258o to
500.
Our people have realized that it
was necessary for the carriers to
have more revenue and have been
willing to pay their fair proportion
Of the advanced rate, but an increase
Of 200To to 5000 on necessary ar
ticles like grain, hay and feedstuffs,
constitute, in our opinion, an I'M
reasonable advance, and l trust that
further consideration will bring your
people to the conclusion that you have
advanced many of these rates to a
point beyond what the traffic will
bear.
We are going to ask the Interstate
Commerce Commission to postpone the
application of this advance until our
people and their communities along
your lines can be heard.
Very truly yours,
W. M. DAVIDSON.
Letter to Interstate Commerce