PROCEEDINGS OF NINETEENTH FRUIT GROWERS' CONVENTION. 23 



that they were right in their judgment lies in this: Sometimes delays in 

 transit happen, and when they do, they are hurtful not only on the par- 

 ticular day on which the delay happens, but sometimes for many days 

 that follow. If, for example, fruit should come in late Friday after- 

 noon, it cannot be sold on that day, but must be carried over to Satur- 

 day. Saturday is the worst day in the week. Saturday's receipts must 

 then be carried over till Monday. Monday thus opens with a glutted 

 market, which generally demoralizes the sales for the remainder of the 

 week. Now, it has happened quite frequently this season that there have 

 been delays on the Erie; whereas, on the West Shore there were scarcely 

 any, except during the first week or so in the season when they were 

 breaking in to the work. However, the question at issue is not which of 

 the two roads is better, nor which of the two roads is faster. The 

 present idea is to permit shippers and growers to use either road. The 

 only point, then, to consider is: Shall we have one salesroom, so that 

 there may be, for the benefit of the grower, the fullest and freest com- 

 petition among all the buyers? 



Mr. Motheral: I would like to ask this question: If there had been 

 any rebate system in favor of those large shippers, would you not have 

 been likely to find it out? 



Mr. Weinstock: I think it possible to have such a system without my 

 finding it out. 



Mr. Motheral: To illustrate: The railroad gets $100 from Chicago to 

 New York, and they have to give Earl and Porter $25 out of that. Our 

 people get worked up over such reports, and it has engendered bitter- 

 ness. It is difficult for them in their demoralized condition to under- 

 stand that hereafter things may change, notwithstanding what may have 

 been done. Now, would we be better off under the closed auction or not? 



Mr. Weinstock: I think that despite all my efforts the railroads could 

 have allowed rebates without my finding it out. But as already ex- 

 plained, I do not believe rebates were given to any one, because of two 

 things: First, because of a conversation I had with a certain shipper, 

 whose name I will not mention, as it was told me in confidence. This 

 gentleman said he was thoroughly familiar with the doings of the rail- 

 road people; he was always in their confidence, and if there had been 

 any rebates this year he would have known it and would have gotten 

 his share. I know that gentleman to be a thoroughly straightforward, 

 truthful man. Another reason why I believe neither the West Shore nor 

 the Erie gave rebates to any one, is because the Armour Packing Com- 

 pany, of Chicago, who do a very great business, and who are exceedingly 

 large shippers — whose shipments from Chicago to New York are so great 

 that the California fruit shipments fall into insignificance by compari- 

 son — tried to get some concession from the West Shore people on their 

 shipments. The West Shore people absolutely refused to grant them 

 a concession, and the Armour people swung their great business away 

 from the West Shore Railway Company. 



Mr. Motheral: I would like to ask, Mr. Weinstock, whether such a 

 rebate would be a crime under the interstate commerce law, and if, in 

 your judgment, the grower would not suffer more, supposing the crime 

 to have been committed, to have one auction room than to have two of 

 them? 



Mr. Weinstock: As to the interstate commerce bill, I cannot state. 

 My judgment is that the divided auction rooms in the City of New York 



