.Inly U<. Uil.l 



fatipaBaM ? ' ;:^^^^^^\ ! ;uBg!OTKesr<s>^^!g^!Kmc^J^!>^ ! gtBMs^ 



Interesting Traffic Developments 



South Pittsburg Rates to River Crossings Not Unreasonable 



Tariffs are to be constnieJ arionliiiy lo llu'ir laiiniiat;^. Tlie inten- 

 tion of the fraincrg is not to control. Tlii» ruling wns banded down 

 last week by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the case of 

 tlie Haskow Lumber Company versus Nashville, Chattanooga and St 

 Louis Railway. In the same case it was ruled that the rates on lumber, 

 from South I'itt.sliurg, Tenn., to Ohio river crossings, of 17 cents, and 

 to Mississipiii river crossings, of 22 cents, are not unreasonable or 

 unjustly discriminatory against South Pittsburg in favor of Chatta- 

 nooga. 



Chairman McChord rendcreil the decision. lie declared that the 

 terms of all tariffs should be stated so clearly as to avoid misinterpre- 

 tation and misunderstanding. 



"Prior to 1909," the opinion reads, "the tariff charges from 

 South Pittsburg are stated in certain and definite terms, clearly indi- 

 cating that the 13-cent rate is limited to lumber sawed from river 

 logs, the subsequent issues are not so limited. The wording is such 

 that the construction sought to be attached by complainant is the 

 natural one. We find that under the tariff in question, the rate law- 

 fully applicable from South Pittsburg to Ohio river crossings on 

 lumber manufactured from logs drawn from inland points on the 

 Southern Railway via Stevenson and Huntsville, Ala., or from Chatta- 

 nooga and beyond, is 13 cents. We find that there have been over- 

 charges on shipments which have been assessed charges in excess of 

 the rate, for which overcharges refund is due the complainant. 



' ' Inasmuch as it is the avowed desire of defendant, in the event 

 complainant's interpretation of the tariff is sustained, to make 

 revision so as to indicate beyond question the application of rates 

 as contended for by it, as has evidently been their intention hereto- 

 fore, it is proper at this time to consider the rates in question. 



"Complainant contends that rates from South Pittsburg of 17 

 cents to Ohio river crossings and 22 cents to St. Louis, Mo., are 

 unreasonable in that they exceed the rates of 13 cents and 18 

 cents respectively, in effect from Chattanooga. It is stated that 

 complainant must compete in the same markets with Chattanooga 

 millmen and that the present difference in the rates gives an undue 

 advantage to the Chattanooga competitors. It is further urged that 

 as both Chattanooga and South Pittsburg are located on the Tennes- 

 see river there is between these points potential, if not actual, com- 

 petition by watfr; that defendant would derive more revenue from 

 the present tariff at the 13-cent rate than on lumber sfwed from 

 river logs, as it gets the haul on the logs into South Pittsburg and 

 on the lumber outbound. 



"We do not find that the present rates on lumber from South 

 Pittsburg to the Ohio river and the Mississii)pi river crossings arc 

 unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory. ' ' 



Discrepancies in Rates East from Arkansas and Louisiana 

 In the matter of rates on lumber to the East from certain terri- 

 tory west of the Mississippi river, which includes a very considerable 

 ' portion of Louisiana and the southern part of Arkansas, the fol- 

 lowing contention is made by the carriers in a brief filed last week : 

 ' ' There is today no uniformity whatever in the rates in this lumber- 

 producing territory to the East. On the contrary, there are numerous 

 and apparently indefensible discrepancies. Effective March 1, 1915, 

 the Rock Island, Iron Mountain and other lines advanced their rates 

 to the level of the rates now proposed by the respondents. The 

 advance, although protested, was not suspended by tlie commission. 

 The Vicksburg, Shreveport and Pacific tariff, however, upon the active 

 protest of several lumber shippers, notable the very sliippers who 

 today enjoy rates lower than those of many of their neighboring 

 competitors, was suspended, thus necessitating this hearing. The 

 situation now is that the broad blanket or zone adjustment, con- 

 templated to cover not only the immediate territory served by the 

 respondents, but practically the whole state of Louisiana and a con- 

 siderable portion of Arkansas, now stands disrupted and will remain 

 so unless the suspension is lifted. The protestants apparently do not 



—20— 



i|iic»li<iii Hcriously the propriety trf a group or blanket adjtistriiput. 

 Their main contention appears to be that there should bo one blanket 

 embracing the territory both east and west of the river. 



"Resjiondcnt next submits that the jiroposod rates are not unrea- 

 sonable or excessive, considered with reference either to the actual 

 service performed and the revenue deriveil Uierefrom or to com- 

 parisons with lumber rates from other producing territories to the 

 same eastern markets, and other comparisons with many other rates 

 for hauls of similar length. The general theory of this whole revision 

 of rates was to publish rates in the tcrritorj- west of the Mississippi 

 to the east on a level somewhat higher, approximately 2 cents, than 

 the rates to the same markets from the territory immediately east of 

 the river. This 2-cent difference is the difference that already obtains 

 as between the lumber-producing sections east and west of the river 

 in respect to tlie rates to Central Freight Association territory and 

 the Buffalo-Pitt«burg zone.'' 



Review of Michigan Rates 



A concise review of the lumber rate situation in Michigan, which 

 has been the source of much controversy in the Peninsular State, is 

 found in the brief filed by the Michigan Central Railway last week. 



For a considerable period the class and commodity rates between 

 points in the state of Michigan have been under consideration by the 

 Railroad Commission of that state. That body issued this order Sept. 

 29, 1914, providing that the rates on lumber should not exceed ninety- 

 five per cent of the sixth class mileage scale. 



When the intrastate rates were checked in on that basis, it was 

 found that the rates to points in the southern part of the state were 

 higher than the rates to points just across the state line in Ohio and 

 in Indiana, and in order to cure this inequality the interstate rates 

 were advanced slightly. 



The ad\-anced intrastate rates established under the order of tlie 

 Michigan Commission were unsatisfactory to the lumber shippers, 

 and an appeal was taken to the courts. About the same time certain 

 lumber shippers who had not been before the Michigan Commission 

 filed a complaint, attacking the advanced rates, and at the suggestion 

 of the court the whole matter was referred back to the Michigan 

 Commission for further consideration. During the latter part of 

 April of this year the matter came on for further hearing, and after 

 considerable testimony had been taken a compromise was suggested 

 by certain lumber shippers. By this compromise it was proposed that 

 all intrastate rates should be advanced five per cent over the rates 

 in effect prior to Oct. 26, 1914, with the exception of the rates to 

 Detroit, which were to be advanced one cent from all points in the 

 state. This would mean a reduction in the rate from Bay City group 

 points to Detroit from eight to seven cents. This proposition was 

 accepted by the carriers and by a majority of the lumber shippers, 

 including those directly served by this respondent. It then was sub- 

 mitted to the Michigan Commission for its approval, but no decision 

 yet has been rendered. It generally was understood, however, that 

 the proposition was acceptable to that body. 



If the proposed readjustment meets with the approval of the 

 Michigan Commission it will result in reductions in the intrastate 

 rates, and doubtless will eliminate the necessity for advancing the 

 rates to a number of the interstate points involved. The desire of 

 the carriers is simply to maintain a relative adjustment between the 

 intrastate points and the border points, just across the state line. 



Reconsignment and Diversion Permitted 



In the case of tlie Iiiik>])cnilont Cooperage Ciimpany versus the 

 Kashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad the commission ruled 

 that the carrier should permit the reconsignment and diversion of 

 carload shipments of coiled elm hoops in transit from Hickman, Ky., 

 to Nashville, at Nashville, to Goderich, Ont., on the basis of the 

 through rate plus a maximum charge of $5 a car. Reparation was 

 awarded on this basis. 



