The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-12-02
Forum Of The People
Mir. Mapother On Freight Rates

10 the EultOf or lne ASe-I1tEdlu.
 l desire to thank you for your courtesy ln publishing, under date of October 20th, my letter in reply to your editorial of September 16th, entitled, "Burdensome Freight Rates" :" Your editorial of October 20th under the head ing of More As To Rate Unfairness, com menting upon my letter seemingly sets aside as yalueless the facts set forth by me because of an absence of proof and then you rely very largely, if not completely, upon the latest decision of the Interstate Commerce Commls- sion Ill the so-called Meridian Case for sub stantiation of your views.
 It would require many columns of your newspaper to explain the reasons for all oi the freight rates existing ill our section ot the country. In the previous letter tried to cover the subject in a broad general way, and while the carriers and shippers may dls- agree as to some of the details, the facts as stated can be verified by reference to any competent industrial traffic expert or to the decisions of the Alabama Public Service Com mission or Interstate Commerce Commission Conditions are constantly changing and, man. ifestly, because of these changing conditions, many apparent inconsistencies and discrim- nations now exist; but the carriers, in CO., operation with the shippers and public reg ulatory bodies, are proceeding to stralghten them out as rapidly as possible.
 It seems hardly fair, ln my Judgment, to Iresort to such a severe condemnation of the carriers general practices and rate policies because of the rather isolated instance of hay rates from a few Mississippi versus Alabama shippnig points to Birmingham, an adjustment which the carriers frankly admitted was wrong and should not be continued.
 You say that l have overlooked the truth of The Age -Herald's statement that inter- lyening points are being made to pay actually higher rates for short hauls than far distant points are paying for long hauls and thus the intermediate points pay for the competition among railroads" l think if you will care fully reread my previous letter you must come to the conclusion that l did not over look such statement, but l am compelled to differ with your thought that the inter mediate points pay for the competition among railroads on the contrary they are maternal lly benefitted Most of these situations dis appeared some years ago and us the result of the carriers being forced to place the rates to the highly competitive points on more near IIy normal basis, they have been compelled, in many instances, to surrender hauling the traffic altogether. For example, shippers ln the middle western states formerly dolhg substantial business at Gulf ports which they moved via all-rail routes, now have consider able difficulty in successfully competing with producers of similar commodities along the North Atlantic Seaboard who have available cheaper all-water transportation to the Gul1 ports. The carriers were formerly able to maintain rates on moving commodities rom points in the middle western states to the 1 Gulf ports not necessarily the same as the all-water rates from the East, but on basis that enabled the rail carriers to realize some thing in excess of the -ofpocket cost Of handling, thus contributing something towards profits without placing any burden whatever upon interior points where the same com
 petitiev conditions do not exist, ana whlcn
 rates enabled the western shippers to sue
 cessfully compete. Manifestly, if the rail carriers operating from the middle western
 states to the Gulf ports are compelled tc
 forego this traffic, as they have in many in
 stances, the gross revenue thus lost will have Ito be made up somewhere else as all that mas
 been saved is the out-of-pocket cost of hand
 ling that particular traffic. The Goodint
 Bill, referred to by you, if adopted, Will et'
 fectively accomplish this result and the maJol loss, as we see it, must finally and inevitably fall upon the interior towns.
 You are apparently laboring under tht
 thought that the Interstate Commerce Com
 missions latest decision in the Meridian Rate
 Case restored to the Alabama Public Service Commission its authority over all of the rates
 on short hauls in the State of Alabama, which had been revoked by the former decision. Such is not the case. The decision to which you
 referred covers only cotton, clay, concrete
 and shale products and, to very limited
 extent, hay and gravel. So far as the rates
 on cotton, clay, concrete and shale products
 are concerned, there was absolutely no differ
 ence of opinion as between the Alabama Com
 mission, the carriers and practically all of
 the shippers The decision clearly shows that
 the Alabama Commission recently prescribed
 scales of rates on these commodities for ap-
 plication generally on Alabama state traffic
 which the carriers were entirely willing to
 apply in the territory coming within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Commission $
 prior decisions in the Meridian case. The Interstate Commerce Commission simply