October 10, l!il.'>. 



Interesting Traffic Developments 



Extension of tin- limit for rpplies to the series of questions siih- 

 Miittod by till- IntorstJite Coniniorce Commission to liiml>er muniifiu'- 

 tiiriTS nnti to the carriers was not unexpected, but there was sufli- 

 cient uncertainty in the matter to make it tlio most important feature 

 of the month, from a bimlM-r stan<lpuint, that transpireil at the eoni- 

 misxion's oflices. There was some temlency on the i)art of the commis- 

 sion to hesitate in (rrnnting the request for the extension of time. 

 While comparatively few companies had replied to the questions by 

 Octolx>r 5, the date of the order of extension of time, enough liad 

 answered to indicate that it was not impossible to furnish the data 

 within the time originally ilesignated. AH plans had been made for 

 the consideration of the lumber questions. Before the work could 

 make much headway it was necessary to have the replies to the (|Uos- 

 tions. The delay of three months in receiving these answers deranges 

 the original plans. 



In the many letters received by the commission in connection with 

 the extension of the time limit none made objection to any question 

 asked. All lumber companies and the lumber associations seemed will- 

 ing to give complete infornuition if allowed more time. 



By postponing the limit from October 15 to December 15 it is 

 believed that all are satisfied and it is hoped by the officials in charge 

 of the investigation that most of the information will be forthcoming 

 long before December 15. 



A rate not to exceed three cents over the Memjihis rate is de- 

 manded by a number of hardwood manufacturers in northern Missis- 

 sippi. The companies filing the complaint are: 



^ Ward Lumber Company, liavins; headquarters at Chicago, and operat- 

 ing a sawmill at Sunllowcr. Miss.. 121! miles south of Memphis; Kraetzer 

 Curc<l Lumber Company, headquarters and operating a sawnnill at Moore- 

 liead. Miss., 120 miles south of Memphis; Rellgrado liUmtJcr Company, 

 headquarters at Memphis. Tenn.. and opeiatiiiK a sawmill at Isola. Miss.. 

 14."i miles south of Memphis: Bayou Land & Lumber Company, bead- 

 quarters at Cincinnati. Ohio, operating a sawmill at Lindsay. Miss.. \~s 

 miles south of Memphis ; Barr-Iloladay Lumber Compan.v, headquarters at 

 Greenfield, O.. operating a sawmill at Louise. Miss., 171 miles south of 

 .Memphis ; .\lbert N. Thompson & Co., headquarters at Memphis and ojier- 

 ating a sawmill at Gearhart Spur, Miss., 183 miles south of Memphis; 

 ,S. C. Major & Co.. heachiuarters at Memphis, operating a sawmill at 

 Yazoo City. Miss., 170 miles south of Memphis; Dugan Lumber Company, 

 headquarters at Memphis. Tenn., operating a sawmill at Roundawoy. Miss.. 

 92 miles south of Memphis ; Russe & Burgess. Inc.. headquarters at 

 Memphis, Tenn., and operating a sawmill at Isola, Miss., 145 miles 

 south of Memphis ; Houston Brothers, lieadquarters at Chicago, operating 

 a sawmill at Vicksburg, Miss., 220 miles south of Memphis ; Alexander 

 Brothers, headquarters and operating a sawmill at Beizonl, Miss., 153 

 miles south of Memphis. 



All of these companies own large bodies of hardwood timber in 

 Mississippi. They show in their complaint that from stations as far 

 south of Memphis as Batesville, on the Illinois Central railroad, 

 Phillip, Minter City, Rome and Clarksdale on the Yazoo & Missis- 

 sippi Valley railroad, the through rates, with few exceptions, are uni- 

 formly 4 cents over the Meinpliis rate, but from compl.ainants ' shij)- 

 jiing points the rates vary from 5 to 6 cents over the Memphis rate, 

 excei)ting to Chicago, Milwaukee and rate points where they now en- 

 joy 4 cents over Memphis. Complainants further show that to the 

 greater part of the territory described in Section 3, rates are made 

 on Ohio river combinations. 



Complainants further show that they come in direct competition 

 with mills north of them, located on the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley 

 railroad, and Illinois Central railroad, which enjoy 4 cents over 

 Memphis, and complainants further show that this commission, in 

 I. & S. 520, approved a rate of 14 cents from practically all hard- 

 wood producing points in Mississippi to Cairo, and a rate of 11 cents 

 from Memphis to Cairo. 



While the rates on all kinds of hardwood are the same from the 

 hardwood producing territory of Mississippi to Cairo, yet to the ter- 

 ritories north of the Ohio river, which are reached through the Cairo 

 gateway, complainants' shipping points take varying differentials 



—26— 



over Memphis, which is a reversal of the general rule that ilKTerentiaU 

 should decrease as distances increase. 



Complainants further show that thev are accorded the name rates 

 as mills in northern Mississippi on cottonwuod and gum; that to 

 group all the territories as far south :is the Alabama & Vicksburg 

 railroad in <uie grou]> would furnish a reasonable basis of rates to all 

 shiiqiers, giving the greatest reach of territory from which consumers 

 may buy liardwoo<l lunitter, which tends towaril increiising competi- 

 tion in the sale of lumber and would be advantageous generally to 

 the complainants and to the public. 



Proposed increases of rates on lumber and cooperage stock, car- 

 loads, from Thebes, III., ami other points to St. Clair and other points 

 in Michigan, have been suspended until April 8, A jirevious order 

 suspended the rates until October 8. 



Heparation has been allowed in the following cases: E. A. Engler 

 Lumber Company vs. Canadian Northern ; Palmer Lumber Company 

 vs. Pennsylvania; D. L. Dewey vs. Norfolk & Western; Thoroughgood 

 Company vs. Philadelphia, Baltimore Sc Washington; South Texas 

 Lumber Co. vs. Missouri, Kansas & Texas; C. L. Willey vs. Chicago, 

 Rock Island & Pacific; Warren Lumber Company vs. Seaboard Air 

 Line; Potlatch Lumber Company vs. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis 

 & Omaha; Trinity County Lumber Company vs. Groveton, Lufkin & 

 Northern ; Asheville Lumber Company vs. Chicago, Burlington & 

 Quincy; John Dulwebber Company vs. Illinois Central and the Pot- 

 latch Lumber Company vs. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 



Warning to Lumber Exporters 



A strong warning has boon issued by tlie well known London firm 

 of C. Leary & Co., against tlie practice of exporters of making pre- 

 payment of freight, as this is likel)' to involve the shippers in serious 

 losses and is represented as full of pitfalls for the exporters. By way 

 of illustration, the case of the steamer Brinkburn is mentioned. 

 This vessel sailed from Gulfport for London with a large cargo of 

 lumber, on all of which the freight had been prepaid. The vessel, it 

 developed, had been taken on a time charter, the charterers evidently 

 collecting the freight on this side, but, it seems, failing to satisfy the 

 owners of the steamer. The charter, as is customary, gave the owner 

 a lien on all the cargo for any claim which they might have against 

 the charterers, and the owners consequently refused to make delivery 

 of the lumber until the charges have been met. The amount in ques- 

 tion is said to be heavj- and there is believed to be a strong possibil- 

 ity of the demand amounting to more than the original freight, which 

 was paid. If payment of the charges is refused, as seems likely, the 

 delivery will be held up, and in addition to the other dues, charges 

 for demurrage will accumulate. There is danger not only of the 

 shippers losing the entire value of their shipments, but of having to 

 pay some money in addition. The firm of C. Leary & Co., therefore, 

 urges insistently that shippers make careful inquiry whether owners' 

 claims for freight have been satisfied. 



The further point is made that the freight on the other side is 

 always paid on an exchange of $4.80 on the pound sterling. Now 

 that the rate of exchange has slumped, those shippers who prepay 

 freight put themselves under a handicap, because the full c. i. f. 

 value of the goods is subject to the loss in exchange, since the ship- 

 pers naturally draw on the c. i. f. price. But when freight is payable 

 at destination the shippers have only to draw for a percentage of the 

 f. o. b. value, with the result that that portion is subject to the rate 

 of exchange of the day, while the portion represented by freight is 

 calculated on the basis of $4.80 at port of destination. As the rate 

 at the time of writing the letter had dropped some 5 per cent or 6 

 per cent below $4.80, it followed that to arrange for payment of 

 freight at destination meant a saving of some 3 per cent in the loss 

 of exchange, because nowadays the freight represents at least 50 

 per cent of the c. i. f. value. 



