Jnniinrv 1i>. l!'l»t 



Permission has bocu given iiitorittntc liiioH iu Aliiliiimn to innko 

 the same rates between tlic same points as those applieil by intrii- 

 stnte routes, without observing the fourth section of the Inw to 

 regulate commerce. 



Reparation has been granted by the commission in the following 

 lumber cases: 



A. P. Brewer Lumber Company vs. CblcSKO & Alton ; Bolt Brothers Manu- 

 fsrturlnf; Company vs. CtilrnBo, Biirllnctnn A Qiilncy ; Cotton Belt Lumber 

 Ooiiipany vs. CblraRO, BurllnKton i Quincy ; Doriiu & Co. vs. Chosnpenke & 

 i>blo: Plerks Lumber A t'onl Conipiiny vs. Cblciigo, Itock Islnnd iS: riicllle; 

 Wood A lve^^on. Inc.. vs. Great Xortbern ; M. \V. Tippy Lumber Compnny 

 vs. Centrnl llntlwny Company of .\rkansiis ; Treniont Lumber Compnny vs 

 Treniont A <;ulf ; icnlrnl LiiinbiT Company vs. Illinois Central; Doly 

 Lumtwr A Sblngle Company vs. Northern Pnolflc: E. A. Engler Lumber 

 Compnny vs. Canadian Xortbern: Midlnnil Lumber Company vs. Chesa- 

 peake A Oblo; Wausau Southern I^uniber Company vs. New Orleans A 

 Northeastern : King Ryder Lumber Compnny vs. Louisiana A Western : 

 I'reston Car A I'oncli Company vs. Illinois Central: S. C. Major vs. Louis- 

 ville A Nashville; E. Sondhelmer Compnny vs. .\lnbamn A VIcksburg ; 

 National Lumber Company vs. New Orleans & Northeastern (two cases) ; 

 Buckley A PoiiRlns Lumber Compnny vs. Illinois Central ; Davenport A 

 Itiilley vs. Pennsylvania Company ; Valley Lumber Company vs. St. Louis, 

 Iron Mountnin A Southern; Cypress Lumber Compnny vs. South Brooklyn 

 Hallway ; Corydon Lumber Compnny and Walrnth A Sherwood Lumber 

 I'ompnny vs. Chicago. Itock Island A Pnclflc; C. F. Llebke Hnrdwood 

 Mill A Lumber Company vs. St. S^uis Southwestern Railway Company ; 

 Trexler Lumber Company vs. Delaware. Lackawanna A Western ; T. Sulli- 

 van A Co. vs. Pcnnsylvnni.i Company ; Jerome M. Sbeip, Inc., vs. Southern 

 Railway; Enochs A Wortman vs. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley (two cases) ; 

 Longville Lumber Company vs. Louisiana A Pacific ; Shawnee Lumber 

 Company vs. Cincinnati, Unmilton A Dayton : Waterman Lumber A Supply 

 Company vs. Chicago. Rock Island A Pnclflc ; Davidson Case Lumber 

 Company vs. St. Louis A San Tranclsco; Kcrnwood Lumber Company vs. 

 Fernwood A Gulf. 



In the matter of lumber rates from Louisiana and Arkansas points 

 the Interstate Commerce Commission finds that the proposed increased 

 rates on lumber of all kinds from points on the Tremont & Gulf, 

 Louisiana & Arkansas, and other lines of railway in Louisiana and 

 Arkansas to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and other 

 .astern destinations taking the same rates are found to be justified, 

 :ind order suspending their operation is directed to be canceled. 



Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston are referred to as 

 typical destinations but the increased rates apply to a large number 

 of points taking the same or higher rates. The territory includes 

 points east of the Buffalo-Pittsburgh line, the Virginia cities on the 

 south and certain points in Canada. 



The proposed rates on all kinds of lumber are 35 cents to Balti- 

 more, Philadelphia and New York, and 39 cents to Boston. From 

 Powells the combinations are, via Cairo, 41.4 cents to Baltimore, 

 12.4 cents to Philadelphia, 44.4 cents to New Y'ork and 46.4 cents to 

 Boston; and via Cincinnati, 40.3 cents, 41.3 cents, 43.3 cents and 4.5.3 

 < onts, respectively. 



The respondents urge that the present rates are unnecessarily low 

 and are noncompensatory for the service performed. In this connec- 

 tion they call attention to the additional service to and the transfer 

 across the river at Vicksburg involved in the transportation of this 

 trafiic from west of the river, compared with the service from east 

 thereof, although, as explained, the respondents' present rates are in 

 many cases the same as apply from east of the river. 



The commission was of the opinion that the inequalities between 

 the mills on the Tremont & Gulf and on the Louisiana & Arkansas 

 shoiUd be corrected. This applies also to the Rock Island, Iron Moun- 

 tain and other roads and all of the respondent lines. 



The readjustment makes applicable the same rate on pine as on all 

 kinds of lumber. 



In summing up the decision Commissioner Meyer said: 



By compnri.son with the other rates the proposed rates do not appear 

 to be unrea.sf»nable. Neither do they appear to be unreasonable when com- 

 p.Tred with the rates -from Georgia. Florida, and .Mabnran to Wash- 

 ington and liaUimore which tec pcrmilird to hecomc eiTectlve in Lumber 

 Rates from Southern Hills to Eastern Points, 27 I. C. C, 189. From rcprc- 



—26— 



sentntlvc points on the respective llnea of origin those rates, as sbowD 

 In the report, yielded averngi' per ton-mile revenues of from DJiS to U.&M 

 mills for average ulstancei of from 702 to 8RT miles. 



Considering all the fncis of ri'iord. It Is our llndlng and conclusions 

 that the respondents have Justified the propositi rntcf. 



Despite the very able arguiiu>nls made by O. H. Webster, the attor- 

 ney for the Ozark Cooperage and Lumber Company, K. KaufTnmn, 

 representing the St. Louis Lundiermen 's Kxchnngi', and other lawyers, 

 the commission has ruled that the |>ropused increased rates <in lumber 

 in carloads from points in Missouri and Arkansas to Milwaukee, Wis., 

 and points immediately south of Milwaukee, are found to have boon 

 justified. 



The increase affects hardwood lumber from points in Texas, Louisi- 

 ana and southern Arkansas to Milwaukee and points between Milwau- 

 kee and Chicago. The rate on yellow pine was taken as a maximum 

 in fixing the rate on hardwoods. 



Resi)ondents assert that the changes proposcil from points north 

 of the yellow pine blanket correct an adjustment erroneously made in 

 1909 upon the supposition that the maintenance of the Chicago rates 

 to Milwaukee and the other destinations involved was compelled by re- 

 ductions which had been made by lines operating through Kansas City, 

 whereas those reductions should have been reflected only in the rates 

 from the blanket where the competition of the Kansas City lines is 

 felt. The increase in rates on hardwood lumber from jioints in south- 

 ern Arkansas within the blanket, it is stated, were made in order to 

 equalize the rates on hardwoods with the rates on yellow jiine in con- 

 formity with the adjustment prevailing north and south of the points 

 of origin herein involved. The protestants rely upon the fact that the 

 1909 reductions were voluntarily made by the carriers, and contend 

 that the carriers should not now be permitted, by raising the rates, to 

 shut protestants out of markets to which the reduced rates had given 

 them access. 



This is the way Commissioner Meyer, who wrote the opinion, sees 

 the question : 



The protestants principally Interested arc cooperage manufacturers who 

 were given access to the Milwaukee market by the reduction of 1909. 

 Prior to that time Milwaukee's cooperage stock had been drawn largely 

 from northern Wisconsin and Michigan. Cooperage stock Is still produced 

 in these states, but the industry labors under the handicap of greater 

 manufacturing costs as compared with southwestern cooperage production. 

 It is suggested by protestants tlint the differential of 3.2 cents, Milwaukee 

 over Chicago. Is excessive, but theli* argument is really based upon the 

 fact that the present rates from Thebes to Milwaukee and Chicago are 

 the same. 



The Chicago Lumber and Coal Company has been sustained by the 

 commission in an important case involving transit privileges on south- 

 ern lumber. The_ case was directed against Morgan's Louisiana & 

 Texas Railroad and Steamship Company. Reparation will be allowed 

 as soon as the lumber comp.nny prepares statements showing actual 

 shipments involved. 



The Lamb-Fish Lumber Company, Charleston, Miss., is recognized 

 by the commission as being one of the most active agents in the hard- 

 wood belt in its efforts to straighten out the various inequalities of 

 rates still existing in that territory. The Lamb-Fish company's com- 

 plaints have the reputation of being drawn with unusual foresight and 

 intelligence. Several complaints have been submitted recently. 

 Among them is one asking for the protection of the lowest combina- 

 tion on hardwood lumber and hardwood products from producing 

 points south of Memphis and north of the Southern Railway in Missis- 

 sippi to the principal consuming points in Central Freight Association 

 territory and east of the Buffalo-Pittsburgh line. The same demands 

 are made by the Kraetzer-Cured Lumber Company of Morehead, Miss., 

 with respect to the producing territory south of the Southern Railway 

 in Mississippi. 



Proposed increases in the rates on forest products from Arkansas 

 points have been suspended by the commission until April 30. 



