The Birmingham age-herald., 1922-10-15
BLAST FURNACES E WIN VICTORY IN
 COURT DECISION
Montgomery Court Holds Service Commission May Fix Rates on Coal, Coke
 and Pig Iron
By FRED H. sioRMLEr

ssi,: First Nstionsi Hank Bniiding
 Montgomery, October i4.---(SpeoiaI. j
 Furnace operators of industrial dis
 tricts and the Alabama public service
 commission won big victory in the Montgomery circuit oonrt Saturday afternoon when Judge walter B.
 Jones held that the public service
 commission hsd authority to estab-
 fish reasonable and just rates for the Transportation of coal. coks. iron orc
 and limestone for uss in the manu-
 facture of pig iron and that the
 rafes which the commissicn pre- scribed In an order issued August IS.
 or discriminatory. At tho time the commission Issued the order it was estimated the saving ca freight to
 furnaces would be about si,soo,ooo annually.
 If the decision of Judge Jones is
 sustsined by the supreme court. to which the railroads involved will | likely appeal. operators of furnaces
 at Alabama City. Gadsden. Anniston. Ironaton. Shelby, Birmingham. North | Birmin ghani, Thomas, Holt, Sheffield
 and Florence will receive iron ore. I limestone, coal and coke at tho fol-
 lowing transportation rates: Iron ora and limestone, distance
 under 26 miles, s7 cents per net ton. | Twenty five miles and under GO
 miles, 47 cents.
 Firty miles and under 6s miles, l eS cents
 sixty-fivs miles and under 30 miles. l71 cents.
 Eighty miles and under 100 miles.
 73 cents. One hundred miles and under 125 miles. S7 cents.
 Coal, distance under 35 miles. s2l5 cents per net ton.
 Twenty-Five miles and under 50
 miles, IS cents
 Fifty miles and under ss miles q. ! Sixty-five miles and under 125 I miles. Si,I2h.
 Coke. distance under 25 miles. s2h
 cents per net ton.
 | Twenty-Five miles and under 50 miles. 76 cents.
 Fifty miles and under la6 miles. 1 Sf.l2H.
 Railroads Jnvoivsd | The commission order was di- rected to the Southern, Louisville and
 Nashville. Nashville. Chattanooga, and I St. Louis. seaboard Ar Line, St
 Louis and San Francisco. Northern | Alabama. Birmingham Belt Illinois | Central Atlanta, Birmingham and Att
 lantic and Central of Georgia raii- l roads. s l Tbey attacked 1t in the circdit
 couft, contending that tho rates on
 the four commodities to the furnaces were speeal preferential rates and | that the public service commiss on
 under decisions of the supreme court ] had no authority to decrease prefer I cntial rates or even to require .
 transportation corporation to main tain a. preferential rate. They also attacked the order on the ground , that the rates fixed by the. commis-
 sion were unjust. unreasonable and discriminatory. s@ AZ Judge Jones took up the conten- tions of the railroads ons at time. He fret held that the rates granted the furnaces were not special prefer
 entisl rates because the carriers in establishing them had never com piled with the provisions of tho law erelatjnE to preferential rates by mak- ing application for the establishnsnt of the preferential rates. by filing a complete statement of each rate. by
 submittipg a sworn copy of any spe- cial contract between the carriers and shippers, by showing that the rates arc for the purpose of develop inE an industrial enterprise and by obtaining the. approval of the com mission.
 Judge Joues' Opiutoh After disposing of the contention
 that the commission had no authority | to establish reductions in the rates,
 Judge Jones took up fhs allegation ] that the rates which the commission 1 ordered were. unjust. unreasonable c
 and discrimiratory. He mentioned q 1 that the burden was upon the rail Yosds to show that the rates were unjuAt. unrsAsonable and discrimi-
 natory and held that no such showin 2
 had been made to the satisfaction of l the. court,
 1 The court has given careful con alteration t9 the coptention of the
 appellant carriers. that the rates fixed
 by the public service commissio In 1 thstr cyder of August ls. 1921, ars unjust and uureaaonable.n said Judge :, Jones' opiAion. Under the law th< court must pyssume prima facie these 1 ratss lrs just, reasonable and cor ! rect and. the burden is on the appel
 lapt cayriers to prove the contrary hy clsax and sAttstactory evidence. The
 court ie of tho sopinicu that tho de- | foudant tohFxioPn 1ayo not yaat this