Indiana. Shipping Interests.

Answer of the shipping interests of Indiana and the Indianapolis Freight Bureau to the remarks of Mr. G. J. Grammer at conference held on November 19th, 1906, between the Indiana Railroad Commission and special committees representing the raliroads and commercial bodies of larger cities of the state online

. (page 2 of 8)
Online LibraryIndiana. Shipping InterestsAnswer of the shipping interests of Indiana and the Indianapolis Freight Bureau to the remarks of Mr. G. J. Grammer at conference held on November 19th, 1906, between the Indiana Railroad Commission and special committees representing the raliroads and commercial bodies of larger cities of the state → online text (page 2 of 8)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ple's pockets in just that manner in the past. Therefore,
this contest cannot stop with mere equalization of rates.
It must go to the point of reduction in rates, based fairly
upon the cost of the service performed, so that the people
may hereafter receive the practical benefit of the lower
rates.

This committee joins with all other shippers' associa-
tions and the lovers of fair play generally, in asking the
coming Legislature to uphold the hands and strengthen
the authority of said commission in the interest of com-
mon justice and square deal for all our people.

B. B. JOHNSON,

Commercial Club, Richmond.
W. C. ROSTETTER,

Commercial Club, Fort Wayne.
GEORGE G. GRIFFIN,

Schnull & Co., Indianapolis.

J. KEAVY, Chairman.
Representing Shipping Interests of Indiana.



December. 1906.



PART II.



INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT BUREAU



N ANSWER TO



Remarks of Mr. G. J. Grammer



CONCERN IMG DISCRIMINATORY RATES ON



INTERSTATE TRAEEIC



PART II.

A STATEMENT FROM THE INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT

BUREAU.

Continuing from Part 1 of this pamphlet. Mr. G. J.
Grammer, vice-president of the N. Y. C. Lines, in speaking
on the subject of class rates in Indiana, before the State
Railroad Commission at the conference held Nov. 19th,
190<>, took occasion to go outside of the questions under
consideration and in his overreaching desire to brand
everything and everybody connected with the proposition
for adjustment aud equalization in rates as unfair, unrea-
sonable, acting in bad faith, etc., committed himself to
misstatements reflecting upon the attitude and motives
of the Indianapolis Freight Bureau which cannot be al-
lowed to pass unchallenged.

We refer to remarks found on pages 27, 28 and 29 of
his address where he asserts as evidence of our unfairness
and bad faith that we picked out a few isolated cases where
rates appear to be slightly against Indianapolis, not men-
tioning the many instances where Indianapolis has lower
rates. We would like him to be more explicit and show
to us the instances where Indianapolis has lower relative
rates than our surrounding competitive cities, and, allow-
ing that some such cases can be shown, is that any sort
of argument offsetting our claims for relative rates? We
are not asking for any undue advantage over other points ;
we are seeking adjustments in our rates to a proper rela-
tive basis with other points; that is all.

He says we have presented a few isolated cases. What
does he mean by that statement in the face and full knowl-
edge of the 48 sheets of exhibits which we have so far pre-



Bented, showing the mos1 pronounced injustice and dis-
crimination againsl our shipping interests. To show the
disingenuousness in his utterances in this connection we
presenl on the following pages exact copies of our exhibits
comprising sheets aumbered I to 18 inclusive, and our let-
in ompanying » pointing clearly the palpable dis-

crimination and unwarranted restrictions and hardship
imposed upon our i raffic.

Careful reading of these exhibits is urged thai the
shipping public, nol pnlj Indianapolis, bul throughoul the
ite, ni.i \ appreciate the handicap they are struggling
under againsl the lower bases of pates in effeci from fav-
ored localities as clearly shown. The remedying of in-
equalities complained of <m Indianapolis traffic means in
a large measure ;i like adjustmenl in rates from the other
parts of the state- -and all are vitally interested.

Following are the exhibits which Mr. Grammer sees
tii to describe as ;i f< w isolated cases:

To General Freight Agents, Indianapolis Roads'.

Di ak Sir:- -The attached Sheets Nos* 1, 2 and 3, rep-
pepresenl comparisons of rates on various commodities
from Chicago and from Indianapolis to Memphis and New
Orleans, showing clearlv the needs of adjusting Indianap-
olis rates. We ;isk for the same relative basis from In-
dianapolis as applies from Chicago and <>lii<> River Cross-
ings. In the published class rates to Memphis and New
Orleans, the Cincinnati rates apply from [ndianapolis,
and as noted on enclosed sheets,"the rates we ask for are
the same as published from < lincinnal i.

The pates quoted are shewn in C. F. A. Tariff L5 and
Mississippi Valley Through Tariff No. LO, and as there
would appear to be no grounds t'<»r disputing the correct-
ness of the figures we ask U>v. nor any reason for delay in
treating the matter, we will anticipate immediate action
"ii the pari of the roads by supplements to the tariffs.

Kimlh advise w hal act ion will be taken.
\'<-i\ t inly vours,



August •".. 1906.



< Jommissioner.



Sheet 1.
COMPARATIVE RATES SHOWING INEQUALITIES OPERATING
AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS INTERESTS.



aking Powder.

C. L.

Southern

Classification.
4th class.



L. C. L.
Southern



To Mississippi Valley Points.

Chgo. to New Orleans, 41c Rates from Indianapolis

" Memphis, 31 should be on basis of 6th

or 6th class rates.* class:

Indpls. to New Orl'ns, 54 To New Orleans, 39c

" Memphis, 40 To Memphis, 30

Same as from Cincinnati.

Chgo. to New Orleans, 58c Same relative basis from



" " Memphis, 43 Indianapolis would be:

or 4th class basis.* To New Orleans, 54c

Classification. Indpls. to New Orl'ns, 75 To Memphis, 40

" " Memphis, 55 Same as from Cincinnati.
3d class.



Varnish & Oil.

C. L.
Southern

Classification.

4th class.

L. C. L.
Southern

Classification.
1st, 2d and
3d class.



Chgo. to New Orleans,



35c



27



(any quantity)
Chgo. to Memphis,

(any quantity)
or 6c and 4c below
6th class.

Indpls. to New Orl'ns, 54
" Memphis, 40

Chs?o. to New Orleans,
(any quantity) 35c

Chgo. to Memphis,

(any quantity) 27

or 6c and 4c below

6th class.

Indpls. to New Orl'ns,

1st, 98

2d, 83

3d, 73

Indpls. to Memphis,

1st, 75

2d, 60

3d, 55



Same relative basis from
Indianapolis would be :
To New Orleans, 33c
To Memphis, 26

Same as from Cincinnati.



Same relative basis from
Indianapolis would be:
To New Orleans, 33c
To Memphis, 26

Same as from Cincinnati.



*Rates published from Ohio River Crossings are on the basis of
6th and 4th class respectively.



Sheet 2.
To Mississippi Valley Points.



Paints.

c. I.
Southern



Chgo. [<> Ne* i Orleans,

i drj or 11 1 i x< <i i
Chgo. t<> Memphis,

( dry or mixed I
in- 15c and i < ►< -
below t'.th class,
lndpls. to Ni'W < MTiis.



Same relative basis from
26c Indianapolis would be:

To Xi'w Orleans,
21 (all kinds), 22c

To Memphis,
(ail kinds), 19

Same as from Cincinnati.



uiassincauon.


dry. 33




Dry 6th,


mixed, 33






lndpls. to Memphis,




Liquid 5th.


dry. 26
mixed, 26




L <• I-


Chgo. tn Xi'w Orleans,


Same relative basis from


Southern


i dry or mixed 1, 35c


Indianapolis would be:


Classification.


Chgo. to Memphis,


To New Orleans,


1st. 2d, 4th


i dry or mixed >. 27


(all kinds i. 33c


and .",th cl


or t".c and 1c below


To Memphis,




t'.th class.


(all kinds). 26




lndpls. '<i New Orl'ns,


Same as from Cincinnati.




1st. 98






2d, 83






1th, 54


t




5th, 44






lndpls. to Memphis,






1st. 75






2d, 60






1th. 1"






r.th. ::•".





Putty.

I..
Southern

Classification,

5th class.



I.. <'. L
Southern

< !lassiflcatlon.

1st. I'd and
4th class.



Chgo. t<i New Orleans,
(any quantity). 35c

ChgO. to Memphis,

( any quantity i . :'T

or 6c and 4c below

i.th class.

lndpls. to W\v Orl'ns, 44

" Memphis, 35

( JhgO. to New Orleans,
i any quantity), 35c

Chgo. to Memphis,
(any quantity), l'T

or 6c and 4c below

t'.th class.

lndpls. to New Orl'ns.

98



Same relative basis from
Indianapolis would be:
To New Orleans, 33c
To Memphis, 26

Same as from Cincinnati.



Same relative basis from
Indianapolis would be:
To Memphis, 26c

To New Orleans, 33



1st,
I'd.
1th.
lndpls
1st.
I'd.
1th.



to .Memphis.



83

54

7"

cr,
40



Chgo. to New Orleans, 90c Same relative basis from

or 2d class. Indianapolis should

Indpls. to New Orl'ns, apply on Circular

Circular, 1st class, 98 Saws:

Buck (bxd.) 2d class 83 To New Orleans, 83c



Sheet 3.
To Mississippi Valley Points.

Saws. Chgo. to New Orleans, 75c Same relative basis from

L. C. L. or 3d class. Indianapolis would be:

Band or Indpls. to New Orl'ns, 83 To New Orleans, 73c

Cross-cut. or 2d class.

Crated or boxed,

Southern

Classification.
2d class.

Saws.

L. C. L.
Buck and

Circular.
Crated or boxed,
or on boards.
Southern

Classification.
1st and 2d classes

To General Freight Agents, Indianapolis Roads:

Dear Sir: — Attached hereto are sheets Nos. 4 and 5
showing inequalities in the rates on several commodities
from Michigan points to Chicago, Milwaukee, East St.
Louis, etc., as compared with rates from Indianapolis, and
as we ask only for the same relative basis as authorized by
C. F. A. from the Michigan points, we assume there will
be no hesitancy in authorizing the rates from Indianap-
olis as shown in our exhibit.

Kindly advise if the same will be done without delay
and oblige.

Very trulv vours,



Commissioner.



August 3, 1906.



Sheet 4.

COMPARATIVE RATES SHOWING INEQUALITIES OPERATING
AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS INTERESTS.
From Various Michigan Points to C. F. A. Territory.



Chairs. C. L. From Detroit,

To St. Paul, Minn., Detroit to Chgo.

and Minneapolis, or 2d class,

Minn. Wes t,

Indpls. to Chgo.
(Cin. Rate.)
West
Through,



57c Indianapolis should have
32 same relative basis to

Chicago, 2d class, 27c,
25 making 52c through to
34 St. Paul and Minneapolis,

Minn.
15
59



i sheel « * ontlnued »



Furniture.

Beds: foldil
Church Furniture,

X. o. s.
Cupboards, wood.

- D
Furniture, X.O.S.
Tables, N o.S.
12. "no lbs.

Official

Classification.
2d class.



From Detroit, Toledo
and Bay City,

to Chicago,

To Milwaukee,
From Grand Rapids,
Midi., to Chicago, 21%

To .Milwaukee. 21%
Basis 3d class.
From [ndpls.,

To Chicago,

To Milwaukee, 29

Basis same as from
Ohio River.



Rates from Indianapolis
should he on same rela-
tive basis, viz., 3d
class:
To Chicago. 21%c

To Milwaukee, 25 ] 2



Furniture.
Beds: folding.
Church Furniture,

X. O. S.
Cupboards, wood.
Desks, S. U.
Furniture, X.O.S.

bles, X. O. S.
Min. 20,000 lbs.
Official

Classification.

2d class.



From Detroit, Toledo

and Bay City,

To Chicago, 20c

To Milwaukee, 24

From Grand Rapids,
Mich., to Chicago, 17%
To Milwaukee, IT 1 !-
Basis 126 per cent, of
4th cla

From Indpls.,
To Chicago, 25

To Milwaukee, 29

Same basis as from
Ohio River Crossings.



Rates from Indianapolis
should be on the basis of
126 per cent, of 4th
class, viz.:
To Chicago, 17%c

To Milwaukee, 21



Varnish. Detroit, to Chicago,
C, L " " Danville,

Official or 5th class.

Classification. Indpls. to Chicago,



4th class.



Danville, 12%



13c Indianapolis rate should
13 be on same relative
basis, viz., 5th class:
14 To Chicago, ll%c

To Danville, 9%



Sheet 5.
From Various Michigan Points to C. F. A. Territory.



Stoves.

L.
Official

Lssiflcation.

5th class.



From Detroit,
" Toledo,
To Chicago,
To Mllwaul
or i;rh class basis.
[ndpls. to Chicago, 11%
- Milw'kee, 13%



Rates from Indianapolis
should be on same rela-
10c tive basis, viz., 6th
12 class:

To Chicago, 9c

To Milwaukee, 11



Radiators.

C. L.
Official

Classification.

5th class.



10c



Detroit to Chicago,

or 6th class.

Indpls. to Chicago. 11%



Rates from Indianapolis
should be on same rela-
tive basis, viz., 6th
class.:

To Chicago, 9c



9



Woodenware.
C. L.

4th class.



(Sheet 5 Continued.)

From Detroit, Bay

City, Toledo, etc.,
To Chicago, 10c

To E. St. Louis, 17%

or 6th class basis.

Indpls. to Chicago, 14
" E. St. Louis 16



Rates from Indianapolis
should be on same rela-
tive basis, viz., 6th
class:

To Chicago, 9

To E. St. Louis, 10y 2



To General Freight Agents, Indianapolis Roads :

Dear Sir: — Attached hereto find our sheet No. 6
showing Indianapolis rates to be out of line with publish-
ed rates In both directions to Chicago and Ohio Biver
crossings. We ask that Indianapolis rates be put on the
proper relative basis as shown on enclosed.

Kindly advise us if this will be done without unneces-
sary- delay and oblige.

Very truly yours,



Commissioner.
August 3, 190G.

.Sheet 6.

COMPARATIVE RATES SHOWING INEQUALITIES OPERATING
AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS INTERESTS.

To Territory Embraced in Issues of C. & O. R. Committee.

Furniture. C. L. Ohio River Crossings, Indianapolis should have

To Chicago, 25c same relative basis as

To Milwaukee, 29 0nio River Crossings,



Official

Classification. or 3d class rateS-

2d class. From Indpls. same

rates account inter-
mediate.



viz., 3d class rates:
To Chicago, 21%c

To Milwaukee, 25V 2



Chairs. C. L.
Official

Classification.
iy 2 any quantity.



Ohio River Crossings, Indianapolis should have

To Chicago, 34c same relative basis, viz.,

To Milwaukee, 39 2d class rates:
or 2d class basis. To Chicago, 27c

From Indpls. same To Milwaukee, 32

rates account inter-
mediate.



Overalls. From Ohio River,

Any quantity. To Chicago,

Official or 3d class.

Classification. From Indpls. same
1st class. rates account inter-

mediate.



Indianapolis should have

25c 3d class, 21V 2 c,

being same relative basis.



II)



i Hliril 8 • nntlnurtl.)



Chairs c L Prom Detroit, 57c Indianapolis should have

To sr rani. Minn., Made to Chicago, 32 Bame relative basis or 2d

and Minneapolis, or 2d class, class to Chicago,

Minn West, 25 viz.: -<c

[ndpls to St. Paul and affecting through rate to

- fl St. Paul and Minneap-

Minneapolis, olis of 52c

Made m Chici 34

\\. 25



Dry Goods. ChgO. to Ohio River, L7c Indianapolis should have

Cotton Piece or Ith class. same relative basis,

Goods. [ndpls. to Ohio River, 15 viz.. 4th class, 12%c



Any quantity
l Por Green Line
Territory.)



To General Freight igents, Indianapolis Roads'.

Dear Sik: — The attached sheets Nos. 7 and 8 show
discrepancies in the-currenl rates from [ndianapolis to
< Hii«» River on traffic for Green Line Territory as compared
with published rates from East St. Louis. Refer to C. &
( ). R. Througt Freight Kate Basis No. 14. and K. I). X<>.
615.

[ndianapolis inn rests are entitled to the same rela-
tive basis in fixing these proportional rates and ask for
such an adjustment as indicated in the exhibit.

We will be pleased to have your views in the matter
and advise that this will be done.

Very I ruly yours,



( Commissioner.



August 3. L906.



Sheet 7.
COMPARATIVE RATES SHOWING INEQUALITIES OPERATING
AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS INTERESTS.

To Green Line Territory.

Furniture. C. 1- From Indpls.. min. weight Indianapolis should have

iW)i..n tor Pi-,.,.n L ' , -° 00 los - subject to same mimimum weight

' rule 27, Official Classifi- as St. Louis bv eliminat-

Ltae rerritory.) ( , ltj(1I1 Ing Rule 2T

Prom St. Louis, min.
weight 24 tiQO lbs.



11



(Sheet 7 Continued).



Canned Goods.
C. L.

5th class.

Canned Goods.
L. C. L.

Southern 3d
Official R. 26.



From B. St. Louis
To Ohio River,

2c below 5th class.

From Indpls.
To Ohio River,

From E. St. Louis
To Ohio River,

being 5th class.

From Indpls.



Indianapolis should have
13c same relative rate,

viz.: 7%c

Rate from Indianapolis
9% should be on same rela-
tive basis, viz., 5th
15 class, 9%c



To Ohio River, 15%



Fruit Jars and
Jelly Glasses.

C. L

5th class.



Window Glass.

C. L.

5th class.



From E. St. Louis,

To Ohio River,
being 6th class.

From Indpls.

To Ohio River,



From E. St. Louis

To Ohio River,
being 2c below 5th
class.

From Indpls.

To Ohio River.



Rate from Indianapolis
12c should be, 6th class, 8c



9V 2



Rate from Indianapolis
13c should be on same

basis, 7%c



9%



Leaf Lard.
C. L.



From E. St. Louis

To Ohio River,
6th class basis.
From Indpls.

To Ohio River,
or 4th class basis.



Indianapolis should have
12c same relative basis,

viz., 6th class, 8c

12 y 2 c



Sheet 8.
To Green Line Territory.
From E. St. Louis Indianapolis should have



Fresh Meat.
C. L.



Laundry Soap.
Washing Powder.
C. L. and
L. C. L.

Southern

Classification.



To Ohio Rivef,
or 5th class.
When for Carolina

points,
or 6th class.
From Indpls.

To Ohio River, . 12%
or 4th class.



15c


same relative bi


asis,


12


viz.,
5th class,
6th class,


91/2C

8



From E. St. Louis

To Ohio River,

or 2c below 6th class.

From Indpls.

To Ohio River, 8

or 6th class.



Indianapolis should have
1 q same relative basis,

viz., 6c



12



, *||.-. i - • ..in l n w.-.l . i



Stoves.



f>th ■



Stoves.

■ lass.



To Ohio Kiv

no [ndpl

.~th
When for Carolina
poll

DO E. St. Louis
To Ohio River,

h class.
• m Indpls.
To Ohio River,

From E. St. Louis
To Ohio River,
-;• 3d class.
m [ndpl
class.
When for Carolina
poll

From K. St. Louis

To Ohio River,
lc below 6th class.
Prom Inilpls.,

or :'.<! class.



Same relative basis
13c should apply from Indian-
apolis, viz.. 7%c and 5c,
• Mvely.






19






11






Rates from Indianapolis
should be on same rela-
tive basis, viz., 13 ^c
and when for Caro-
lina points, 7



' eneral Freight Ayents, Indianapolis Roads:

D lb Sib: -We presenl herewith our sheets Nos. { -i
10 and 11, showing; some striking inequalities in the cur-
rent rates applying "ii traffic t<> common points in the

theastem territory from [ndianapolis, as compared
with published rates from Bt Louis, etc., as per K. 1>.
Tariff 615.

The relative rates from Indianapolis which we ask for,
;iv >iio\vii on our Bheets, are based on i he difference in rates
north of the river as between Easl St. Louis and Indian-
apolis, alter deducting the rates beyond Cincinnati from
the published thruugh rates from East St Louis, and
which we think is n fair basis in oVtrnninino- tin- through
rates from I ndianapolis.

We trust iliis iia>is of adjustment will appeal to yon

fair i" ;ill interests, and will be pleased u> hear from
you regarding the same. We do nol understand why In-



13



dianapolis interests should be so neglected in fixing and
publishing such rates.

Kindly favor us with an early expression and oblige.
Very truly yours,



Commissioner.
August 3, 190G.

Sheet 9.
COMPARATIVE RATES SHOWING INEQUALITIES OPERATING
AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS INTERESTS.
To Common Points in Southeastern Territory.

From Indpls. min. weight Indianapolis should have
24,000 lbs., subject to same minimum weight
Rule 27, Official Classifl- basis as St. Louis, viz.,
cation. 12,000 lbs., Southern

From St. Louis min. Classification,
weight 12,000 lbs, subject
to Southern Classificat'n.



Furniture.
C. L.



Terra Cotta.


Through rate




Basis for rates from St.


C. L.


From E. St. Louis,


25c


Louis is not apparent but


(for building.)


From Indpls.,




rate from Indianapolis


Southern


To Ohio River,


8


should not be higher


Classification.


South,
Through,


20
28


than from St. Louis,
viz., 25c


Canned Goods.


Through rate




Indianapolis should have


C. L.


From E. St. Louis,


51c


same relative through


5th class.


From Indpls.,




rate, viz., 45%c




To Ohio River,


9%


5c below 5th class up




South,


41


to Ohio River.




Through,


50%




Canned Goods.
L. C. L.
Southern 3d


Through rate
From E. St. Louis,
From Indpls.,


64c


Indianapolis should have
same relative through
rate, viz., 58%c


Official R. 26.


To Ohio River,


15%


lc below 5th class up




South,


50


to Ohio River.




Through,


65%




Tin Cans.


Through rate




Indianapolis should have


4th class.


From E. St. Louis,


67c


same relative through




From Indpls.,




rate, viz., 6th class up to




To Ohio River,


12%


Ohio River.




South,


55






Through,


67%






Glass Fruit Jars.
Jelly Glasses.

5th class.

C. L.



Through rate

From E. St. Louis, 43c

From Indpls.,

To Ohio River, 9%
South, 35

Through, 44%



Indianapolis should have
samerelative through
rate, viz., . 39c

4c below 6th class up
to Ohio River.



14



Sheet 10.
To Common Points in Southeastern Territory.



Window Glass.
L
5th da



Throuuli rate

Prom E St Louis, 17c
:n Indpls.,
To Ohio River,
South, 35

Through, 14%



Indianapolis should have
same relative through
rate, viz., 43c

6th class up to Ohio
River.



Lamp Chimneys.


Through rate




Indianapolis should have


L


From E. St Louis,


76c


s;une relative through


1th el.


From indpls.,




rate. viz.. 70%C




To ohin River,


12%


lc below .">th class up




ih.




to Ohio River.




Through,


74%





Fresh Meat.
L.



Through rate

From E. St. Louis, " N >

From Indpls.,

To Ohio River, 12%

South. 15

Through, 57%



Indianapolis should have
same relative through
rate, viz., 54c

lc above 6th class up
to Ohio River.



Machinery.


Through i




Same relative through


Pulleys, C. L.


>m E. St. Louis,


4 1c


rate should apply from


Hangers, C. L.


From Imlpls..




Indianapolis, viz., 40c


Shaft in - . C. L.


To Ohio River,


8


4c below 6th class up


6th class.


South,


36


to Ohio River.




Through,


44




Molasses Syrup.


Through rate




Indianapolis should have


L


From E. St. Louis,




same relative through


5th cla


From Indpls..




rate, viz., 30c




To Ohio River.


9%


% of 6th class to




South,


26


Ohio River.




Through,


35%




Molasses Syrup.


Through rate




Indianapolis should have


L C. L


From E. St. Louis,


36


same relative through


r.ih class.


From Indpls.,




rate, viz.,




To Ohio River.


9%


below 6th class




South.


26


to Ohio River.




Through.







Laundry

I.
•i class.



Laundry Soap.
L. C. L.
6th cli



Common Points in
Soap.



Sheet 11.

Southeastern



Through ral

From K. St. Louis.
From [ndpl

To Ohio River,

South,

Through,
Through rate
From I-:. St. Louis.
From [ndpl

To Ohio River.

tth,
Through,



35c

8
28
36

8
35



Territory.

Indianapolis should have

same relative through
rate, viz., 31c

r,c below t'.th class
to Ohio River.

Indianapolis should have

same relative through
rate, viz.. 4lc

2c below 6th class
to Ohio River.



15



(Sheet 11 Continued.)



Soap Powders
and Washing
Compounds,
(not liquids) C. L.



Soap Powders
and Washing
Compounds,
(not liquids)
L. C. L.



Through rate
From E. St. Louis,
From Indpls.,

To Ohio River,

South,

Through,
Through rate
From E. St. Louis,
From Indpls.,

To Ohio River,

South,

Through,



35c

8
28
36

45



35
43



Indianapolis should have
same relative through
rate, viz., 31c

5c below 6th class
to Ohio River.

Indianapolis should have
.same relative through
rate, viz., 41c

2c below 6th class to
Ohio River.



Paints, Putty and Through rate




Same relative through


White Lead. From E. St. Louis,


53c


rate should apply from


(Any quantity) From Indpls.,




Indianapolis, viz., 49c


To Ohio River,


12%


4c below 6th class to


South,


45


Ohio River.


Through,


57%





Pipe-Wrought
Iron.

C. L.



Through rate

From E. St. Louis, 32c

From Indpls.,

To Ohio River, 9

South, 25

Through, 34



Indianapolis should have
same relative through
rate, viz., 28c

5c below 6th class to
Ohio River.



Stoves.
C. L.



Through rate

From E. St. Louis, 43c

From Indpls.,

To Ohio River, 9%

South, 35

Through, 44%



Same relative through
rate should apply from
Indianapolis, viz., 39c
4c below 6th class to
Ohio River.



To General Freight Agents, Indianapolis Roads:



Dear Sir : — Herewith are our sheets numbered 12 and
13 presenting some comparisons in rates where Indianap-
olis is very much out of line and we ask that adjustment
be made to the proper relative basis as shown on enclosed.

Kindly advise and oblige.

Very truly yours,



Commissioner.



August 3, 1906.



n;



Sheet 12.



COMPARATIVE RATES SHOWING
AGAINST INDIANAPO
Between Various Points in

Louis,

To Cincinnati,
To JeflersonvUle,
i \Vw Albany,
To Louisville,

5c under 3d cla
From Indianapolis,

Cincinnati, 19%
To mville, 19%

To New Albany,


2 4 5 6 7 8

Online LibraryIndiana. Shipping InterestsAnswer of the shipping interests of Indiana and the Indianapolis Freight Bureau to the remarks of Mr. G. J. Grammer at conference held on November 19th, 1906, between the Indiana Railroad Commission and special committees representing the raliroads and commercial bodies of larger cities of the state → online text (page 2 of 8)