The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-12-02

any COalNnOOlty. naC IS WnaC was QOHe with reference to cotton, concrete, clay and shale products, hay and gravel, men, toned by MT. Mapother and previously referred to in these columns, and it met considerable opposition. The carriers did not want the order vacated as to hay and gravel; they resisted it with all their might. The Alabama commission finally won it's contention and obtained control over the state rates on these commodities.
 Mir. Mapother states that it is in- credible that difference of from 30 to 70 cents per ton on hay (and this was Johnson grass hay), would have kept any considerable amount of Alabama hay out of the Birmingham market. There is no necessity for imposing upon the credulity of anybody on this point. That very thing was proved in the rehearing of the Meridian Rate Case. It was proved by the Alabama Public Service Commission and the Alabama Farm Bureau Hay As sociation with such exactness that they won their contention for a modification of the order in that case and with such force that the Interstate Commerce Com- mission, in it's opinion, stated that such an adjustment of rates was indefensible.
 MT. Mapother states that the carriers admitted that this situation was wrong and should be corrected and that it was probably an oversight on the part of the carriers in not correcting it along with the publication of the rates under the first Meridian decision. We understand that the hay shippers called this matter to the attention of the interested rail- roads, and that they dealt with it very much like they are dealing with the ap- plication of the principles of the long and-short haul rule-by postponement.
 We understand that hay is by no means the only commodity on which the rates in the Meridian Rate Case are caus- ing trouble. There are others just as serious. A brick plant was forced to close down at Demopolis; a gravel pit ceased operations; at least one of our lime kilns, caught just within the scope of the decision, was driven out of the Alabama markets affected, and many other instances could be found of like character.
 Mir. Mapother cites an alleged dis crimination between state and interstate rates on livestock and gives some com parisons of rates to support his conten- ton. When discriminations and prefer ences are discussed, as we have pre- viously mentioned, the carriers frequently turn to such discriminations as these. But Mr. Mapcther's figures do not tell the whole story by any means. The live stock rates in force in Alabama were made thessubject of formal complaint by Swifts& Company before the Inter- state Commerce Commission Ca similar complaint to that filed by Meridian, Mis- sissippi, on all classes and commodities), |, and the case was tried in Montgomery last. spring, the Alabama Public Service Commission representing the public of Alabama and defending the integrity of the state rates against this attack.
 MT. lMapother's figures as to the rate comparisons are similar to those filed by Swift & Company, but they do not fairly set forth the differences in the two rate structures, l. e., state versus interstate. The two structures are not made III ac- cordance with the same scheme. For example, the interstate minimum carload weights are materially lower than the intrastate minimums; the interstate rates carry no limitation of the values of the livestock shipped hereunder in case of loss or damage, while the Alabama rates do carry such limitations; the rule in force on interstate traffic for increasing the rate for any increase in the valua- tions, of course, is different from the Alabama rule; double-deck rates on hogs are provided on interstate traffic while there are no such rates in Alabama; spe- cial rates are provided on interstate traf- fic for "stocker" cattle and hogs sub- stantially less than the regular rates, while there are no such rates in Ala bama; and there is joint-haul scale on interstate traffic made slightly higher than the single-line rates, while in Ala bama joint-haul rates are made on a basis of the sum of the local rates to and from the junction points less ten per cent. These are some of the diff. ferences that Mir. Mapother's figures do not reflect.
 In this connection, we understand that the Georgia Public Service Commission definitely and positively declined to put into effect the interstate scales on live stock, but that the Alabama commission has the matter under consideration. We wonder why the carriers failed to attack the decision of the Georgia commission before the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion as they have done with respect to certain of the Alabama commissions de- cisions on other commodities. Is it be- cause the federal commission, in pre- scribing the interstate scales, stated that the single-line scale should be applied