The Birmingham age-herald., 1922-11-15
HISTORY OF SEAPORT
 AMENDMENT
From the Mobile Register.

 The Register to review the history of the movement of which that vote was the cap and crown, and to refer, with pardonable sat- isfaetion, to the part this newspaper had in bringing about an action so serviceable to the community and to the state. More than 12 years ago the movement be- gan in an effort on the part of the business community to improve the ports facilities for doing business. Certain conditions were found to exist that prevented the port from enjoying all the advantages of it's situation and it was necessary to institute proceedings, because, as The Register said, in it's issue of July 31, 1910:
 The state is like big bottle, full of
 the products of human industry and
 the port of Mobile is geographically the
 mouth of the bottle.
 The railroads have succeeded in put
 ting a stopper into the mouth of the
 bottle, and made it tighter by reason
 of rates that give preference to com
 merce over their rails, this having effect
 of discouragng private enterprise and
 strengthening the stopper in the mouth
 of the bottle.
 On July of that year, the Turner Docks case came to public attention, upon the com plaint of MT. Horace Turner that the rail- roads, owners of most of the dock facilities here, were proposing such discrimination against private wharves as promised to put him out of business, which action, said The Register, should be opposed as matter of vital importance to the shipping interest of Mobile"
 The fact disclosed was that the owners of the principal wharves here had decided to combat the extension of private wharves for accommodation of commerce by writing a new tariff, refusing to deliver shipside at the new wharves or to any other wharves but their own, thus placing a charge of $4 car upon shipside delivery at all wharves but their own. and virtually denying delivery to such wharves.
 The railroads persisted in their purpose and amended their tariff in the particular mentioned, even placing ban upon the pub lie wharf, owned by the city of Mobile, by whose grant the railroads occupy public streets and do business in the city. This last was receded from July 30, upon the news papers pointing out to the city government the gross injustice of such discrimination
 So the ease went to the interstate com merce commission, was heard in the autumn of 1911, and decided May T, 1912, the com mission commanding the Mobile and Ohio and the Southern railway to make shipsidc delivery at all wharves and provide through bills of lading fot all shippers
 The need of through bills of lading ran parallel with the need of shipside delivery. if business was to be accommodated on equal terms in this seaport, for it was the practice of these railroads to refuse to deliver freight unless 1t was transported down their rails, or to ship to shipside in any case where they had no business relations with the ship. The incident that aroused attention was the Mobile and Ohio's routing of consignment of freight intended for export via Mobile, to New Orleans, where it went to sea on a vessel not originally intended to take it. The shipper sought to ship through Mobile and by ship that had not preferential arrange ments with the Mobile and Ohio. The rail- road took the shipment to New Orleans and delivered it to the United Fruit company, ship-operating concern competing with Mo- bile for business.
 Under this practice, the Mobile and Ohio, and the Southern-both having terminals in New Orleans, competing port-controlled large part of the import and export busi- ness of Mobile, and forced it to be routed over their rails, and, if not successful in this, refusing to handle it here. By this Mobile lost what was rightfully hers and New Or leans, the competing port, was gainer at Mo- bilc's expense.
 The interstate commerce commission in- tervened, upon appeal made to it by the commercial bodies of Mobile, and ordered the practice stopped; and one year later the railroads bowed to the order and announced that they would obey it. Shortly thereafter, however, the railroads discovered that the wharves were no longer of great value .o them; and the counsel for the Mobile ana Ohio stated to a conference of merchants with the city commission that the railroads would not develop wharves further because of the attitude of the government toward wharf ownership. It was in this year also that a wel-known railroad official made a state- ment that facilities would have to be supplied if Mobile port>was to grow in business. |. Because of this situation there was begun movement for public development of the port and upon scale commensurate with the ports needs and the probable growth of the port. The war caused delay in getting the work done, but it was never laid aside nor were the workers for it discouraged, even when help was refused by those who should have had deepest interest in its success
 To construct and operate terminals. build