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 4 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 4 of 8)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


is thai the classification basis has been sel aside by agree-
ments among the roads and under authority of Central
Freight Association to favor those interests at Toledo and
the Michigan districts with lowei rates by commodity tar-
iffs, while [ndianapolis is held strictlj to classification
rating; and it matters not whether the difference in rate

suiting therefr be great or small, the principle of

right and justice is involved and our interests are entitled
and shall insist upon the same relative rate basis. If
from Michigan or other districts commodities are given
lower class basis than classification, then Indianapoli3
urns! have the same class basis.

1 1 is surprising and deeply disappointing to hear the
Committee say these discriminations in classification are
of no importance and accordingly refuse to recommend
that fairness and justice be done for Indianapolis interests.

( >n Varnish, [ndianapolis is 100 miles shorter dis-
tance than Detroit to Chicago, yet we pay higher rate.
From Detroit to Danville, Illinois, is 300 miles, the dis-
tance from [ndianapolis >••". yet we pay 12y 2 c against De-
tt-nit 13c.

On Stoves we pay one class higher than Detroit to
Chicago, our rate 5th class, Ll%c, rate from Detroit on
6th class, \^r. Radiators, same conditions as applying on
Stoves.

< >n Woodenware to Chicago, with comparative dis-
tances given above, Indianapolis pays It:-, while Bay City,
Detroit and Toledo pay Hie. Woodenware to E. St. Louis,
distances and rate as follows : Hav < Mi v. 5Sr> miles, 1 7 1 -.c ;
hetn.it. 188 miles. L7y 2 c; Toledo, 436 miles. 17^c; while

Indianapolis. 242 miles, pays 16c, the difference between
tih class rates charged from Indianapolis and 6th class
rates from the other points.

I- it possible the initial carriers ai this point would
undertake to justify your expressed refusal to remedy such
glaring discriminations against these important Indian-
apolis intei We believe upon reflection your Com-
mittee will reverse its decision completely in this connec-



33

tion. We are asking only for what is clearly our rights
and the Indianapolis Freight Committee is derelict in its
duties and responsibilities, alike to the initial roads it rep-
resents and the shipping interests of this community, in
refusings to act towards correcting the palpable wrongs
pointed out on our Sheets 1 and 5.

We hope to hear further and favorably from the
Committee in this connection.

Very truly yours



Commissioner.



Oct. 22. 1906.



Secretary Indianapolis Freight Committer.

Indianapolis, Ind.

Dear Sir : — Replying to your letter of Oct. 18th, with
reference to our Sheets Xos. 11 to 17, inclusive, treating
the question of rates to non-prorating points in Mississippi
Valley and adjacent territory; also our Sheets 18 to 20, in-
clusive, relative to rates to interior junction points in Tern
nessee and Mississippi.

We beg to impress upon the Committee that their
vieAvs are entirely in error in proposing Chicago rates as
basis from Indianapolis to the territory in question. By
no just nor competent reasoning can any such conclusions
be sustained and we protest strongly against that sort of,
adjustment. Sheets 11 to 17, IS to 21 and 22 to 21, in-
clusive, although covered by different tariff issues, de-
scribe three parts of one general territory to the west of
Green Line or Southeastern Territory and east of the Miss-
issippi River, excepting Texas and Pacific and Southern
Pacific Railway points, and in the matter of fixing a rate
basis for Indianapolis to that whole section we beg to call
attention to the fact that a basis already exists and has
long been established, i. e., the published class rates from
Cincinnati as maxima from Indianapolis to Mississippi
Valley prorating points, and we want that basis recognized
and used in fixing all rates, class and commodity, to that
whole territory. In the last paragraph of your letter von
state our Sheets 22, 23 and 21 have been approved with-
out any alteration, which is the adoption of Cincinnati
rates as maxima from Indianapolis, and that is the only



34

correct treatment to give to adjustments asked under our
Sheets 1 I to 17 ;iu<l 18 to 21, and uot to do bo would be al-
together inconsistent with the Committee's action on
Sheets 22, 23 and 24, since the general situation and pate
conditions as between Chicago and Cincinnati are the
same throughout. Yon will observe thai on the commodi-
ties shown in all the sheets, it to 24, Cincinnati rates gen-
erally are 2c and k belo'w Chicago, and so with the class
rates except ing Lsl and 2nd class

We trusl we have made this clear; thai a solu-
tion for one is the solution for all contained in Sheets 1 t
to 24, inclusive, and that the Committee will reconsider the
matter and recommend Cincinnati rates as maximum basis
for Indianapolis to territory described in our Sheets H
to 21, inclusive. Will expect to hear further from yon ad-
vising the Committee's action in response to above.

Ven i l'nlv yours



t Jommissioner.
22, 1906.



Chairman Indianapolis Freight Committee,

Indianapolis, Iml.

Dead Sib: We are in receipt <d' several letters dated
Oct. 18th, from Secretary Barr, advising the action taken
by your Committee <>n some of our Exhibits of Compara-
tive Rates; also regarding some of the special subjects
presented by the Bureau.

Enclosed are copies of letters in reply to Mr. -Kan's
communications where it appears the Committee's action
is in error and insufficient to do justice to our pr6positions.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding and
to enable your Committee to fully comprehend the signifi-
cance <d' our Exhibits, Sheets 1 to 24, inclusive, will state
that under Sheets l. 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, LI, 12 and L3 we pre-
at specific cases and ask for exactly the same basis of
rating on the commodities named, to the same points of
destination or basing points, i. e., where interests at other
points are favored to the extent of Betting aside the elassi-



35

fication rating and by commodity tariff or otherwise the
carriers make rates on the basis of one or two or three
classes lower than classification, or lc, 2c, 3c, 4c or 5c be-
low the proper class rate; then we shall insist that the
same concessions be made for Indianapolis traffic.

All the other sheets, viz. : 1, 2, 3, 14 to 17, 18 to 21, 22
to 24, inclusive, point to inequalities operating against In-
dianapolis in the several tariff issues covering the terri-
tories described in the heading of our Exhibits, and the
adjustments called for involve the full scope of these tar-
iffs and extent of territory and all rates, class or commod-
ity, carried in each tariff. That is to say, the instances or
comparisons set forth in our sheets are presented only as
illustrations, reflecting the conditions of the entire tariff
or tariffs applying to all of the commodities or class rates
to all points embraced in the territories described and cov-
ered by such tariffs, and not merely the particular cases
used for illustrations.

For your further information and understanding of
the situation and our attitude and demands for a complete
revision and readjustment of Indianapolis rates, we en-
close next attached copy of letter addressed to the traffic
officials of the several Indianapolis roads, also summary
accompanying same setting forth specifically the adjust-
ments called for in connection with each of our several Ex-
hibits. Sheets 1 to 24.

Our members, realizing the flagrant discriminations
existing against Indianapolis traffic, are insistent upon
having full justice done in the readjustment of our rate
situations and merely partial or half-way measures of
relief or indifference on the part of the Committee acting
for the initial carriers, as indicated by Secretary Barr's
letter of the 18th dealing with some of the propositions,
will be resented and contested by the Bureau.

We trust your Committee will in .fairness admit the
correctness of our contention and do justice to our inter-
ests here in recommending for radical and complete read-
justment in Indianapolis rates and conditions applying
to our traffic.

Very truly yours



Commissioner.
Oct. 23, 1906.



rral Freight Agents, Indianapolis Roads.

Deab Sir: Referring to the many propositions, onr
Sheets Nos. l to 24, inclusive, presented i»\ this Bureau
the [ndianapolis Committee, copies of which have been
furnished to the traffic officials of the several [ndianapolis
roads, railing for adjustment in our rate situations. We
have ty our exhibits dearly established the fad thai [ndi-
anapolis traffic destined in every direction excepting east-
bound is subjected to excessive and unwarranted rates
relatively to the rates in effect from surrounding competi-
tive «-it ies

We show thai respectively rates from Chicago, Cin-
cinnati, and from E. St. Louis i<> Mississippi Valley points,
to territory known as Interior .Mississippi ami Tennessee
junction points, to Green lane Territory and Southeastern
common |»«iiiii>. effective over routes passing through Indi-
anapolis, are made and in effect without any regard 1<<
[ndianapolis interests, alignment <>f rates, law or reason,
and in many instances these rates arc less than rates from
[ndianapolis. See our Sheets Nos. 1. 2, 3 and •'> t<» 11, in-
clusive.

We show thai from the Michigan districts <m carload
shipments to principal and basing points, furniture, wood-
enware, rarnish, chairs and stoves, all important commod-
ities in [ndianapolis traffic, are given rates on lower l>a>i<
than official classification while holding our traffic in thes
commodities strictly to classification.

Furniture from Michigan' has -"'.id class, from [ndian-
apolis 2nd class.
Woodenware from Michigan, 6th class; from Indian

a|»niis ith class.
Varnish from Detroit, 5th class; from [ndianapolis,

ith class.
Chairs from Michigan i»«'inis. 2nd class; from [ndian-
apolis, 1 ' 2 class.
Stoves from Detroit, 6th class; from [ndianapolis, 5th
rla

- e our Sheets Sos. I and 5.
We show thai from Chicago to Detroit Fresh Meal
and Provisions are rated :Ji._.c and Lc, respectively, below
classification l»a>is. while from [ndianapolis the classifica-
tion rating ; - enforced representing differences in rates



per cwt. against Indianapolis of 4y 2 c on the former and
2c on the latter with distance practically the same. Our

Sheet No: 12.

We show that on Hides to tannery points in Michigan,
St. Louis has rates 5c below 6th class, while Indianapolis
shipments pay the classification rating of 5th class, repre-
senting an excess in rate of 8c per cwt. on Indianapolis
traffic. Our Sheet No. 13.

We show that on traffic destined to non-prorating
points in Mississippi Valley and adjacent territory by
arbitrary ruling and agreement among the roads, Indian-
apolis is held on a higher and excessive basis in effecting
through rates than authorized and applied from Chicago,
Cincinnati, Louisville, New Albany, Evansville, St. Louis
and all points west of the Indiana-Illinois state line. Our
Sheets Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive.

We show that through tariff rates are published on
traffic from Chicago and Cincinnati to points in Tennessee
and Mississippi, while Indianapolis has to effect through
rates by sums of local rates to Ohio River crossings and
local rates beyond, resulting in much higher rates than
should obtain on proper basis for relative through tariff
rates. The traffic from Chicago and Cincinnati under this
showing passes through Indianapolis. Our Sheets Nos. 18
to 21, inclusive.

We show that on traffic destined to territory on Texas
Pacific and Southern Pacific Railways in Louisiana, both
Chicago and Cincinnati have lower rates, class and com-
modities, than permitted from Indianapolis, by reason of
the unwarranted restrictions imposed, upon Indianapolis
and territory east of the Indiana-Illinois state line, but not
applied on traffic from Cincinnati, which, as well as Chica-
go traffic, passes through Indianapolis. Our Sheets Nos.
22, 23 and 24.

The adjustments as called for by our exhibits referred
to in the foregoing are as indicated on attached sheet. Our
members desire to have an explicit expression from you at
this time announcing your attitude towards these proposi-
tions. We presented all these matters tc you, as well as to
the Indianapolis Committee, during August, and should
have had relief at Central Freight Association meetings in
September, and it is important that we know in advance



if the aituation is to be remedied by action of that body at
its \"\ ember meel ings.

Kindly favor ns with early reply and oblige,
Verr\ i rulv rours



Commissioner.
Oct. L9, L906.

Adjustments in Rates Requibed in the Intebests of

[NDIANAPOLIS TRAFFIC, AS PEB EXHIBITS, SHEETS

Nos. l to 24, Inclusive.

To Mississippi Valey Points, Sheets I, 2 and 3:
Cincinnati rates on all commodities, being the same
basis as carried in class rates.

2nd. Various commodity rating between C. F. A. points.
Sheets I and 5 :

The same relative class basis from Indianapolis on the
,,i lities and to the destination points ns shown in the

hibit.
3rd. C. & O. R. Committee issues, Sheet No. 6:

The same relative class basis from Indianapolis on
Lhe commodities and to the destination points as shown
in the exhibit.
1th. To Green Line Territory, proportional rates to Ohio

Ki\ it : Sheets ~ and 8 :

The same relative basis as to class rates and minimum
weights "ii the commodities as shown in the exhibit.
5th. To common points in Southeastern Territory, Sheets

9, in and 11 :

The same relative basis as to class rates to Ohio River
as per exhibil : or if through divisions are used from E. St.
Louis, relative through rates from Indianapolis on per-

tage basis less than E. St. Louis.
6th. Miscellaneous commodity rates between C. P. A.

points; Sheets 12 and 13:

The same relative basis ns to class rates from Indian-
apolis on commodities named and to destination points as
shown in exhibit.
7th. To Qon-prorating points in Mississippi Valley;

Sheets 1 I to 17. inclusive:

Thai "ii traffic from Indianapolis the comhination of
rates to and from Memphis, New Orleans, etc., be permit-



39

ted and authorized same as in effect from Chicago, Cin-
cinnati, Louisville, New Albany, Evansville, St. Louis, etc.,
as illustrated in exhibit.
8th. — To interior Tennssee and Mississippi points ; Sheets

18 to 21, inclusive:

That through rates be shown from Indianapolis in
published tariffs, observing Cincinnati rates as maxima
as described in exhibit.
9th. — To territory on Texas & Pacific and Southern Pacific

Kail ways in Louisiana ; Sheets 22, 23 and 24 :

That on traffic from Indianapolis the same basis for
through rates be permitted and authorized as in effect from
Chicago, Cincinnati, etc., holding Cincinnati rates as max-
ima as illustrated in exhibit.



Chairman Indianapolis Freight Committee.

Indianapolis . In d.

Dear Sir : — We wish to direct the attention of your
committee to the matter of furniture rates from Indianap-
olis to Missouri River points as compared with the com-
modity rates from Chicago and Louisville as illustrated
by exhibit attached herewith — our sheet 25.

The distance from Chicago to Kansas City, as we fig-
ure, short mileage, is 458 miles, while the distance from
Indianapolis to Kansas City is 492 miles.

The average distance from Chicago to the five Missouri
River points: Omaha, St. Joseph, Leavenworth, Atchison
and Kansas City, by short lines, is about 485 miles, taking
C. & N. W. to Omaha, C. B. & Q. to St. Joseph, Leaven-
worth and Atchison and the Santa Fe to Kansas City. The
average distance from Indianapolis to the same points is
about 520 miles, as follows: to Kansas City via Decatur
and Wabash ; to Atchison, Leavenworth and St. Joseph via
Decatur, Wabash and C. B. & Q. and to Omaha via Peoria
and C. B. & Q. The distance from Louisville to Kansas
City is 550 miles, as against 492 miles from Indianapolis,
and the average distance from Louisville to the five points
named is 595 miles.

The exhibit shows the freight charged on the different
kinds of furniture as described in Lists Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4,
also at different minimum weights — and at a glance you



40

will see the palpable injustice of the rates charged from
Indianapolis; the differences, taking cars of 10 feel to 50
feel in length, generally used for furniture shipments, be-
ing $15.00 i"' |39.00 per car in favor of Louisville and from
$25.00 to $49.00 per car in favor <>f Chicago on furniture
\. < >. s. .is per Lisl N<». I.

There is do justice nor even argument for lower rates
from Louisville thau from Indianapolis to tin- territory
in question. Neither is there any justification, distance
considered, U>r allowing Chicago such advantage in the
rates as against Indianapolis. Our interests here <-;iiiin>r
endure sneh discrimination and ask for immediate relief.
\> n temporary adjustment we requesl that the through
ps i" Misouri River points, K;ins;is City to <>in;ilia in-
clusive, on furniture, carloads, 20,000 lbs. minimum from
Indianapolis, be fixed <•>: the l»asis of 5c per cwt. over the
Chicago pate by authorizing differentials i" the Missis-
- I»i River or otherwise^making ;i through rate of 35c
per cwt. This pate i" be applied ;is maximum to intermed-
iate territory, also as basis I'm- territory beyond. Tin- rate
from Louisville referred t" in the exhibit is carried in
Southern Railway Tariff I. <'. < '. 802, and the rates from
Chicago are as set forth in the Book of Western Freight

Klltes No. 5.

Please get iliis subject before your committee for ac-
H without delay and advise, obliging.

Very t nil v yours,



( !ommissioner.
< >et. 27, 1906.



41



in



<D

x

CO



co

r-

co

lu

DC

LU

H

Z

co

-l
O
Q.
<
Z
<

Q

Z

h

co

z

<
<

O

z

I-
<
cc

LU
Q.

o

CO

LU



o

I

CO

co

w

h-
<

QC

LU
>

<

<

0.

o
o



co

CD

cd

a

5



« >

- ei

— d



• o o o o ©
o © © co co ©

rt t- lO t> CO ©

r, h n m * ^f



© © © © ©

© © 00 00 ©

C- LCS t~ CO ©

HNMM



ti <»



© © ©
b£ Si © © oo
V, 4 t- in t-

. ©
0) ©



© ©
© ©

eo as

© ©



© LO CO © ©

co co ■# t- ©

eo o'h iflN

h n m n os



© LO " © ©
CO CO -sf_ t— ©

m d h in n

^ CO CO CO



© lo eo o o

CO CO -* t- ©

co ©' H id co

t— CO © © ©



©
©



• ,d
3"



LO



W ^~ >



o P
°- s?

E — ' CO

re •-
■■5 2



tf



CO
CO



©
CO



lO



•M
CO



©
©



©
CO



© © CO •"*!


©




CO


j


<i


30 © lO 00


©




©


-


• £—


eo H eo ©


t-^




00


CI


d W-


i-l CO CO CO


iH




6




q-l isf
co -

ez i— 1


O © CO rfi


©










00 © lii 00


©


CO








MHN!6


t-^


.2






Him N




+3
O






"3 =8


© © CO ■*


©


d


>^




O^.


00 © LO 00


©


«j


cd






co i-i co ©


t-^


£




C— 00 © ©


t-


3=1


• r-




©








-




CO ■*


©




5


-




C LCS
O CO


©




Eh








to - - -







j


+J — '


■^1






z




£73


LO

eo' : : :











o

Xfl


EH


^ ^
^E


CO






£


>



E
o



ai © © © © ©
gjj © © co © ©

Q OS Tf LCS LO ©




Eh



CD CO . . » -

+-> CO * " " "

Ph

© © © © ©

r) © © © © ©

.3 © LO LO © ©

^ r-^ H HHC1



© LO

CO CO




© ©

L^ ©


CO


LO
OS


©


©
LO


t-


LC5










CO

?1


:


:


-


=


© o © ©
© © © ©

© © X 5C

CO LO © i—i
i— i— i— CO


©

c

CO



<




D




LU




z


re





-a




V


a


£



0) ©

bJO©

• X©



>
m
•3 PJ

o



<»Lffl

CO



_ <U r-



fig



©
©
©

c-1



■a

z
re



fo



ai ©
bij©
x ©

M .

ei CD i



©
©



©
co



©
©



V)
CI
C w

'w c 3 ai ©

w ._ u *i CO

° o ■- pi

O^O .©

^ fi ©



© -
©



© - .
cr - -



o



©
©

CO



cd
o



©
©
©
©

CO



© © CO ■* ©

00 © LO 00 ©

30 © t> i— i CO

CO CO ^P LO CO



© © © © ©
© © © © ©

© LO t- -St 1 ©

co co as co ©

t-^ CO CO CO CO



©
©



LO

CO



©
©
©
©

CO



©
©

©

©



©

CO



©

© : c s

©

eo



o

I/)

V)



o

h



O ©

o . S

^ ZZ. C <M C ©

*J ^O © LO ©

CC 00 "ST 1 ^f LO r-i



S CO



O ©

©



'— ' -: *7 *!* ''V

->J O © LO ©
03 00 f ^ LO



O ~





CO

a
Z



eo * : - = T 1
O ©

d . .§

55 C 3^ ^ e ©

+j to 6 Li o

CO 00 ^f ^ LO £-■

3 O



.^ c



-



X? 0) cj ^

gJ5M £

rt c c

"3.5 5



-



o-g



^3 •'< J

| § d^

O -u , +->

*"' 6 ~ 5 ^

-£ ^ m c -

r- ^ o d x

^.•;



m

| a

CD O



- fc^



5 o

32



CO
CO

3 is

^^

of"

cq 5 .

CD 03

d rr

'C co'O
- CD

tBfiS

I : ~ *

• - fe r.

^ O co"



Chairman Indianapolis Freight Committee,

Indianapolis, Ind.

Dear sir: The enclosed exhibits— our sheet -*'2 — pre-
,! comparison of Indianapolis and Chicago rates to
Missouri River points and territory beyond in .Missouri
and Kansas as per lists of point atached hereto on furni-
ture of different kinds described in Lists Nos. L, 2, 3 and 4.

These figures show differences in rates in favor of
Chicago as follows: Articles named in I-isi No. 1. iM'-.r
percwt.; List No. 2, L6c percwt; List No. •"'>. 8^ •_■<• per cwt.
and List No. I. 6c per cwt. You will note the same dif-
ferences in rates against [ndianapolis holds out in all
the groups owing to the adjustment in rates from Chi-
cago and from Mississippi River. List No. 1 includes
furniture N. O. 8., showing a difference of 24%c per cwt.
against i ndianapolis.

This arrangement of rates is altogether unreasonable
and untenable and calls for a prompt and fair adjustment
by the initial carriers at [ndianapolis and which our in-
terests here expect to be done without unnecessary delay.

To show further how pronounced this discrimination
is against [ndianapolis we submit some additional compari-
sons on Sheets 26, 27 and 28 enclosed herewith, giving
furniture ratings from Michigan points to the territory in
question, showing that Grand Rapids has from 14.00 to
siT. no per car less than [ndianapolis, Benton Harbor
si7.ni) to |22.00 less per car, Detroit and Toledo $9.00 to
115.00 per car less freight to pay than [ndianapolis. Such
;i condition is outrageous and ought not to hr suffered to
continue, and it is earnestly hoped your committee will ap-
preciate the seriousness of the situation and give immed-
iate attention to the subject, recommending proper ad-
just ment.

Inasmuch .-is the same conditions are presented in

this proposition as govern in connection with our exhibit,

Sheet 25, being the rate from Chicago to the terri-



43

tory and points named, we ask for the same measure of
relief, viz: that through rates on furniture, all kinds, car-
load, 20,000 lbs., Indianapolis to the teritory and points
named, be established on the basis of 5c per cwt. above the
rates from Chicago.

Kindly secure early action of your committee and
advise what is done, obliging.

Very truly yours,



Commissioner.



Oct. 29, 1906.



11



.E

CO



CO

h

co

UJ

cc

UJ

z

CO



_ - •. a
° d o i ft



: -



<

D

a

UJ

z

o

z



=■
o
in



(A
V
■♦»»

ni
QC

u







s i

CO u.

CO
UJ

H

<

QC

UJ

>

I-
<

or
<

a

o
o



- I

~ 1



o
a
re

c
re

■a
£ h

E
o

L.

IL



go



S =



: s
Eh :

•J



~ sc



: :



r

X






s
©

I-'





O
0.
<






: a


:
=




Z




u




-




<






c ~







^




ii


:l _






Q

Z












XI


</>


- — *^
- X


r




«■■


o


■a


JZ J —


©




h
co

z

<


m

■a

c
re


a.

re
CC

XI

e
re








<




O




i *




o

z


O


E
o


cfl ^2


E I







1.


l_


^z


O




h


4>


IL


w —


=




<

oc


h




©
- 1





c_




s







UJ
0.


1)
>







■y.




o


DC


:- v.


- r ' >■


go
-


1 2 4 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 4 of 8)