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 7 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 7 of 8)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


J c
Eh



2 x o y. c x

Shfhhehwi



T.




K




05




01


, '


DO


,_*"


Gfl


J


tu


-


X





w


-


o


+j


c





O





X


c


X


3


■/.


2


HhHc-ac-



CO

c

If

C -



<D


*TS


. C


X


C x




»"ea






u b;


P2 "




C r—






5S


fe£



70



CO

h
co

UJ

cr

UJ

h

Z

CO



CO UJ



n



< •_

D re

O °

ui r

Z re
- 0.

a I
z |

I-

m

1 >
CO

CO
UJ

<

DC

UJ

>

<
DC
<

Q.

s

o
o





■_ — :: —

S

' f - = ©
© oo o



r r r
3 © =


- z z

- - -.


K


X BO

— —


— —


— —

« *


I -

i-




— I-




:: • •








= — -
- - -
3© C

: : — . :


3000

i

nooo







I - I - t-
- = . —
-
s © c



-
-



- - = r • _ — _j





O






.• M te


© © —


— r r




0.






•7 "• ::

-M -


S 3 3


© © ©




<

z




1


■ i it


us ~ ~















* *




<






-'




-




Q

Z






_ Ifl cc


.


i - . .






"— 1


2= " -


::


— '




















</>





- © ©


© © z


© © ©




h
co




© x ©


© © ©


© © ©




"D




:f i - ©


C 3 — *


z z z




re




i - -.


r t — i ~


eo — •'.




z


o




t? —








™"


L.












<


re












o


o












<






-' X M


© © ©


o o e




~




M *> -


— . 3 — .


-. - -.




o


3


1


© — -


— - 1 i "


i -' ~ ©i




z


»•-


I


'_ •'■ ~>






• »




h


O




93




3




<




w


-~ '-" 2


©. • :


it.


.


DC


U)


r~


— .




~™


03

-r


UJ

a.


a>




~ © -


- z z


© © ©




o




— y Z


© © ©


© © ©


o
u


o

CO


X




:f. _


© © z


— © ©






£S2







r. - ~

■ t j - i "

i - — i-



3 © C

x id S



- z z z z
» © oo oo oc

>0 O 00 00 OC

T i :: —

— r i t i " i



rt M "t

- / :i

:



= = r — o
30 O 00 00 oc
I- — • - I - I-
i- r: c — ^-i
— r i r i ri



ri -^ c
y. x r.



t»;



- _ ■- - -

- ■ K '.'\

i " (0 00 t"
— I.-.

:7 ..
~ DO

"- C ^J —

~ Zim M ^ O

5 © trs oo t-^



r utoCQoc

= M - - '■'■ —

— a -









'^



d



ax



.; © c

= ~

-_ - ~

U - . .-



r: — d —

I — o ©
I ir. r =



~ - ~



c



e s 3

i - ~ ' 3S



* *

©

i ■: . .



3 O °
; — ^

u-i M L.-5
-' M "•



— .


■f.

-




w






= = r z: ©


T


SO © 00 OO OC


~


-r r tc - x


z
=

-


iscooocnc


t— T 1


© 3 ©




s -\ \z




—■ T. :i




l> I- S.





1



~ - —
r z =
r = r
^ — i"



© © © 3 © ©

= r © © © =

- - © © © ©

- — i - :: — i-



= -

a -



V)

re


^ r


i/>




c




re b£







X :


<-



















M


o<




o




cc I


•/ *






0) —


:



r r = r r

— r = © ©

r © r © =

— : : i - x r.



z. oa do do

a oo _r oo do _•

— -."-»*—

B X o X x 2



- -



©©© — ©©© -©©©

3©0020©©*- | ©c -

z z Z 3 © © _ © © ©

- — i'; — r: — it -r. — us

DO ;'

00 - no b S

gg %• SO - W



:t



= = -






2 x



r a
■-■-.



z M S



-

-i



= =

~ 'Z










71

To General Freight Agents, Indianapolis Roads:'

Dear Sir: — We enclose herewith Exhibits, our Sheets
Nios. 25 to 48, inclusive, presenting further the inequali-
ties and hardship imposed upon Indianapolis traffic under
the existing" unfair adjustment in our rates and unwar-
ranted and prohibitive restrictions put upon shipments
from here, which are not enforced on like traffic from our
surrounding competitive points, as set forth in the exhib-
its.

We are clearly in the right in calling upon the initial
carriers at this point to correct at once the abuses in rates
complained of in their own tariff issues, and likewise to
secure the relief asked for in the tariff publications of
Western and Southwestern roads; also where we contend
Indianapolis in certain respects is not assigned to proper-
ly defined territorial grouping; also the restrictions re-
ferred to on many of our important commodities as pre-
sented in the exhibits. These disabilities our interests
here insist must be remedied without delay, and our traffic
permitted to move under as free and favorable conditions
as given to our competing cities. It is nothing less than
outrageous that the differences in freight a.gainst Indian-
apolis, as shown in these exhibits, should be allowed to
exist and argument is not required to establish that fact.

The exhibits herewith presented establish conclusively
that Indianapolis both as to locality and industries is
wantonly discriminated against and the situation demands
that the carriers recognize our rights and cease such dis-
crimination and adopt a just and relative basis in the re-
construction of Indianapolis rates as set forth in the ex-
hibits.

We show that on furniture destined to the Missouri
River points, Kansas City to Omaha, inclusive, and
territory intermediate Indianapolis pays freight on car-
load shipments, |39.00 more than Louisville. §40.00 more
than Chicago on furniture not otherwise specified, while
on Spring Beds. Metal Couch Frames, Metallic Mattresses,
Cots and Cribs Indianapolis pays 820.84 more than Louis-
ville and |30.84 more than Chicago on the same minimum
weight basis as applied from these points.

Distances to Kansas City are: From Chicago, 458
miles; from Louisville, 552 miles, and from Indianapolis,



72



r.»L' miles, Indianapolis being onlj •".! miles further than
Chicago and •'•<» miles shorter mileage than Louisville. The
average distance to the five Missouri River points, viz.
Kansas City, Atchison, Leavenworth, St. Joseph and Oma-
ha are: From Chicago 184, Louisville 596, [ndianap-
olis 524, showing Indianapolis to be only Hi miles further
than Chicago and 72 miles shorter than Louisville. Our

Slieel \o. 25.

We show thai on Furniture destined to Missouri River
and territory beyond from Michigan points the minimum
weighl is 12000 lbs. for any length of car on the basis of
3rd-class rate to the basing point, Chicago; while from In-
dianapolis (in 50-ft. car, generally used for furniture, the
minimum weighl is 18000 H>s. and our rate is on the basis
of 2nd-class as per Classification. Our traffic therefore is
subjected to ;i double handicap in weighl and rate and un-
der these conditions Indianapolis pays freighl $17.00 per
car more than Grand Rapids, $14.00 per ear mere than
Toledo, Detroit, Saginaw and Bay City, and $22 per car
more than Benton Harbor and Nlles, Michigan. Distances
to Kansas City are : From Hay City T<»."> miles, Detroit 713,
Toledo 662, Grand Rapids 636, from Niles and Benton
Harbor each 550, while from Indianapolis 192 miles.
Sheets 26, 27 and 28.

We show thai on chairs, carloads, destined to .Mis-
souri River points and intermediate territory, Indianap-
olis with distance as shown above decidedly in our favor,
pays freight on 50-ft. ears $12.00 to $14.00 per ear more
than Grand Rapids, and $4.00 per car more than Detroit,
while competition with Chicago and Louisville we pay
$68.00 and $58.00 per car, respectively, more than those
points on the hasis of same minimum weight.

In this connection attention is called i<> the fact that
our natural ami direct route, viz.. via Mississippi River,
is dosed to us and the traffic forced to move via Chicago
io obtain the lower rating which we do by using the Cin-
cinnati to Chicago commodity rate on hasis of L'ml class,
being intermediate, while full classification rating of li/ 2
Lst class would apply routing direct via E. St. Louis >r
Mississippi River crossings ;is shown 1 ► \ exhibit. See our
Sheets l".>. 30 ami 31.

We show that on furniture not otherwise specified
destined lo territory in Missouri and Kansas, basing on



73

Missouri River Crossings, the rates from Chicago are
2414c per cwt. less than from Indianapolis, and on the
other kinds of furniture specified Chicago rates are 16c,
8%c and 6c per cwt. less than charged on Indianapolis
shipments, and Grand Rapids and other Michigan points
by reason of their low commodity rate to Chicago effect
lower through rates than Indianapolis to the territory in
question. Our Sheet No. 32 with list showing grouping
of Missouri and Kansas points.

We show that on chairs, C. L., destined to St. Louis, In-
dianapolis pavs a rate of SS^c per cwt., while Louisville
pays 35c, Grand Rapids 50c, Detroit 55c and Chicago 23c.
See our Sheet No. 43.

We show that |0n furniture, C. L., as specified in ex-
hibit destined to points in Kentucky and Tennessee, ship-
ments from St. Louis are taken on proportional rate of
17c, 4th class, E. St. Louis to Ohio Riyer, while Indianap-
olis pays local rate on classification basis of 2nd class, viz.,
22c per cwt. Distance from E. St. Louis 336 miles, from
Indianapolis 110 miles. See our Sheet No. 44.

We show that part car lot in excess of full carload
on certain specified commodities, destined to Texas and
Arkansas points, are charged at L. C. L. rates on ship-
ments from Indianapolis — while from Cincinnati, Louis-
ville. New Albany, Evansville, Chicago, Milwaukee and
St. Louis, these part car lots are given the carload rating.
Our Sheets Nos. 47 and 48.

We show that shipments of vehicles, chairs, furniture
and woodenware, destined to Arkansas common points
from Indianapolis, are charged local rates to E. St. Louis,
while the same commodities move from Chicago, Cincin-
nati, Louisville, Evansville, etc., on basis of differentials
over E. St. Louis. Our Sheets Nos. 41 and 42.

We show that class and commodity rates to Indian
and Oklahoma Territories from Indianapolis are held on
Cincinnati basis, whereas bv reason of distance and
geography, we are entitled to Chicago rate basis. Our
Sheets 33 to 40 inclusive, and 45 and 46.

The adjustments called for under these showings an-
as enumerated in attached sheets, and we urge there be no
such delay on the part of the roads in correcting these
wrongs as has been manifested so far in connection with



our exhibits previously presented. Sheets l to 24 inclus-
ive.

< hir members requesl an Immediate expression of your
virus and attitude towards the relief to [ndianapolis
traffic indicated in these exhibits and acpompanying let-
ters submitted.

Verv truly vours,



< Jommissioner.



Oct. 29, 1906.



READJUSTMENTS IN RATES AND CONDITIONS ASKED FOB REMOV-
ING DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS TRAFFIC, AS
PER EXHIBITS — SHEETS NUMBERED 25 TO 18 INCLUSIVE.

1st. — That rates on furniture, C. L.. all kinds from
[ndianapolis to .Missouri River Crossings and intermed-
iate icrritory be adjusted and authorized on basis of 5c
per cwt. over Chicago rates on basis of 20,000 lbs. mini-
mum for any length of car — same as applies from Chicago
and Louisville, shown in Exhibit, Sheet No. 25.

2nd. — That on furniture, all kinds, carloads, destined
to Missouri River and points beyond in Missouri and
Kansas, as per lists of group points attached to exhibit,
rates from [ndianapolis be established and published on
basis of 5c per cwt. above the Chicago rates with minimum
weighl 20,000 lbs. for any length car— Sheets 26, 27, 28
and 32.

3rd. — That pates on chairs, carloads, as described in
exhibit, from Indianapolis destined to Missouri River
points and intermediate territory be established and pub-
lished on ltasis of 5c per cwt. above the Chicago rates un-
der Western Classification minimum weights, observing
as maximum ltasis the 30c rate at 20,000 lbs. from < Ihicago
—Sheets 29, 30 and 31.

4th. — That class and commodity rates from Indian-
apolis to Indian and Oklahoma Territories, revered in I.
& < ). Committee Tariff ill. be readjusted on a lower basis,
by including Indianapolis in Chicago group territory and
applying Chicago rates. This is amply justified on the
grounds of geographical position and comparative dis-



tances. Taking- McAlester as a fairly central point in In-
dian Territory and Oklahoma City for that territory:

Chicago to McAlester, 774 miles, from Indianapolis
sos miles, while Cincinnati is 902 miles.

Chicago to Oklahoma City is 802 miles, from Indian-
apolis 785 miles, while Cincinnati is 879 miles.

The average distance from Chicago is 784 miles, from
Indianapolis 796, while from Cincinnati 890 miles.

Being shorter mileage in one instance and but 12
miles difference on average distance entitles Indianapolis
to Chicago rates asked for. See our Sheets 33 to 40 in-
clusive, and 45 and 46.

5th.. — That on traffic from Indianapolis destined to
Arkansas common points, where differential basis over E.
St. Louis is used in effecting through rates, the carriers
abolish and remove the restrictions imposed upon certain
commodities important among our industries, including
vehicles, woodenware, furniture and ekairs under which
the differential basis is denied to our shipments and local
rates to E. St. Louis charged resulting in very great
hardship absolutely prohibitive to Indianapolis interests,
especially so since these commodities move on the differ-
ential basis from Chicago, Cincinnati, Louisville, Evans-
ville, etc. The figures presented in exhibit and in letter to
Indianapolis Committee show the outrage imposed upon
Indianapolis interests. Sheets 41 and 42.

6th. — That on chairs, C. L., destined to St. Louis, a
rate from Indianapolis be established on basis of 2d-class
32c per cwt., this being the basis of commodity rates be-
tween other C. F. A. points, shown in exhibit, our Sheet
No. 43.

7th. — That on furniture, C. L., as specified in exhibit
destined to interior Kentucky and Tennessee points, ship-
ments from Indianapolis be given 4th-class proportional
rate to Ohio River Crossings, same basis as in effect from
St. Louis. Our Sheet No. 44.

8th. — That on shipments of vehicles or other bulky
articles, destined to Texas and Arkansas points, where
there is a part car lot in excess of full carload, the restric-
tion enforced on such part lots, under which L. C. L. rat-
ing is charged, be removed and permit the carload rate
to apply, same as allowed on similar part lot excess ship-
ments from Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati,



76



Louisville, New Albany, Evansville and other points. The
extra freight on [ndianapolis traffic under the ruling com-
plained of is a severe restraint on trade, prohibiting sales
in many instances by reason of these additional, excessive
and unjust charges shown in exhibit, Sheets 17 and 18.



The foregoing must impress the readei thai the cases
are not so few nor isolated. <>n the contrary, our traffic
to practically all parts of the country, excepting between
here ami the North Atlantic Seaboard, is subjecl to ex-
cessive rates and unjust conditions which arc nol enforced
against traffic from competitive cities and districts.

Note tin' extent of territory covered in exhibits: from
the Carolinas throughout the Southeast and South, Miss-
issippi Valley, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas. Indian and
Oklahoma Territories, .Missouri River points, Kansas, Ne-
braska, Colorado, Utah, St. Paul. Minneapolis, etc. Mr.
Grammer knows all this, vet tells us it is not so, or that
only hero and there a little difference exists. Note the ex-
hibits and then measure his misstatements.

Again, lie says that where such eases do exist the ini-
tial roads in Indiana arc powerless to protect their local
industries. That .statement is unwarranted, since the ini-
tial roads have it in their own hands to solve the conditions
complained of. Take traffic for points in Southeast terri-
tory, as shown on Exhibits, Sheets 7 to 11, inclusive, where
St. Louis run ship right through Indianapolis via Cincin-
nati <ii rates about the sann and in some cases lower than
iln rut's from Indianapolis. The rates beyond Cincinnati
are just the same and the differences complained <>f are
all in the rates this side of the ri\cr. is there anything to
prevent the roads, Indianapolis t<> Cincinnati, in adjusting
their own rates so as to give [ndianapolis interests a
chance to compete with St. Louis? h is absurd to say
they cannot.

Take traffic destined io .Memphis. New Orleans, etc.,
Sheets 1. •_' ami 3. Is there any justice in hauling freight
from Chicago and from Cincinnati right through Indian-
apolis <ii mils lower Hkiii charged from Indianapolis t
And would the gentleman say the roads passing through
here from Chicago and from Cincinnati with that traffic
are powerless i" adjust the rates from [ndianapolis?



Look at Sheet 44. Does there appear airything to pre-
vent the roads from Indianapolis to Cincinnati and Louis-
ville making rates to correspond with the rates from St.
Louis?

Refer to Sheets 41 and 42, Showing how we get to
Arkansas with some of our principal commodities as
against Cincinnati and Louisville, paying from Indianap-
olis to St. Louis twice and three times the rales charged
from Cincinnati and Louisville, while the traffic from
those points passes right through Indianapolis.

Sheet No. 43 shows that on chairs in carloads, our
manufacturers and shippers are obliged to pay li/o times
first- class rate, while competitors at other points are
favored with 2nd-class and 4th-class rates. In other
words, Chicago to St. Louis, distance 280 miles, has rate
of 23c per cwt., as against Indianapolis, 242 miles, rate
5&y 2 c ;and Detroit and Grand Rapids with double the
distance have lower rates than Indianapolis.

The initial Indiana roads, if they so desired, could
take action to remedy the conditions complained of, and
it is mere idle talk to say they have no voice in the protec-
tion of" the industrial and commercial interests in Indi-
ana and are powerless to change the situation. Were they
to direct some of the energy towards helping their local in-
dustries which they are expending in resisting the meas-
ures of relief asked for, the burdens complained of could
easily be removed. The same general principle applies
throughout the exhibits on traffic destined beyond the
Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, and the initial Indiana roads
could effect the needed adjustment in these competitive
conditions without disturbing or affecting their local rates
for intermediate traffic. Mr. Grammer knows how true
all this is and it would be interesting to have him explain
why the initial roads are unwilling to give Indianapolis
and the other interior Indiana cities a fair relative basis
for competitive traffic.

Refer again to exhibits, Sheets 4 and 5 and 43, and
note the favoritism shown to Michigan interests:

On Furniture they have 3rd class rates — we pay 2nd class.
" Woodenware " " 6th " " " " 4th "

" Varnish ' " " 5th " " " " 4th "

" Chairs " " 2nd " " " " 1% 1st class.

" Stoves " " 6th " " " " 5th class.



i8

Why is this? And will .Mr. Granimer tell us thai his
system of roads, operating lines in both states, cannot give
[ndiana interests the same classification basis as like in-
terets in Michigan enjoy? Look at the exhibil for Furni-
ture, Sheets 25 to 32, inclusive, and cote thai to Kansas
City the freighl is $49.00 per car more from [ndianapolis
than from Chicago, and $39.00 per car more than from
Louisville; the distance is only 30 miles in favor of Chi-
cago, while Louisville is 7(1 miles farther than [ndian-
apolis. Note thai Grand Rapids, Detroit and Bay City,
Mich., can ship furniture to Kansas City and the other
.Missouri Liver points cheaper than [ndianapolis with dis-
tances L50 to 200 miles in favor of Indianapolis. Further,
our shippers of chairs have to pay $68.00 per car more
than Chicago and $58.00 more than Louisville to Kansas
City, and the other .Missouri River points; also Detroit
and Grand Rapids, .Mich., pay less freight than Indianap-
olis, and the same differences in freight applies to ship-
ments to points beyond the Missouri River crossings in
Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado and Utah. Does such adjust-
ment of rates appeal to Mr. Grammer as being fair? Are
these cases what he terms "petty" ones? Are These rates
charged only a "little higher" as he expresses it? Be tolls
us there is no relief, i. e.. the initial roads are unwilling to
granl relief; so thai while these same roads can readily
adjust their rate conditions on traffic from Ohio River
points, Chicago and territory lying west of the Indiana-
Illinois state line, where they have the competition of
Southern and Western roads not controlled by thi Central
Freight Association, when it comes to treating with ship-
ping interests located in interior Indiana the screws are
sel and they declare they are powerless to act.

To whom, then, are the manufacturers and shippers
of interior Indiana to look for relief?

.Must we appeal to the outside roads, in the west and
south, to regulate Indiana rates?

Are there do obligations resting upon the Indiana
railroads under their charters to interest themselves in
protecting local industries in this state by adjusting rates
on a relative basis to those in effect from surrounding

competitive districts?



79

Can our industrial and commercial interests prosper
against such discriminations as pointed out in the fore-
going exhibits?

The only alternative indicated bv the declaration of
Mr. Grammer would point to the removal of manufactur-
ing and jobbing interests to the more favored cities and
districts, where the carriers are not so powerless or indif-
ferent and where they would exert their influence in sym-
pathy with the needs of traffic.

What could be more disquieting or injure so much
the relations between shipper and carrier than to listen
to a speech, from a man holding high official station and
clothed with the authority held bv Mr. Grammer, so
marked by misstatements, vainly attempting to deny exist-
ing conditions which have been clearly and forcibly pre-
sented with the full understanding and approval of the
members of this Bureau.

INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT BUREAU.

J. Keavy, Commissioner.
Approved by Executive Committee of Directors.
December, 1906.



81



BOARD OF DIRECTOR*

T. R. KACKLEY, Atlas Engine Works

H. BATES. JR.. American Hominy Co.
H. C. ATKIXS. E. C. Atkins ft Co.

J. L. KETCHAM. Brown-Ketcham Iron Works

HARRY B. GATES. Climax Coffee ft Baking Powder Co.
W. ML TAYLOR. Chandler & Taylor Co.

F. B. WHITLOC'K. Indianapolis Foundry Co.
C. C. HAXCH. Xordyke & Marmon Co.

ALBERT LIEBER. Indianapolis Brewing Co.
SAMUEL REID Kingan & Co., Ltd.

T. B. LAYCOCK. The T. B. Laycock Mfg. Co.
C. P. MeDOUGAL, G. P. McDougal & Son.

W. G. GRIFFITH, National Malleable Castings Co.

D. M. PARRY. Parry Mfg. Co.
.TLA XT) VAX CAMP. Van Camp Hardware a.- Iron Co.
K. H. RICE. Pope Motor Car Co.

GEORGE G. GRIFFLX. Schnull & Co.

ROBERT ELLIOTT, Standard Dry Kiln Co.
H. O. SMITH. Indianapolis Rubber Co.
E. HAYEXS. Havens & Geddes Co.

P. H. CLIFFORD, C. P. Lesh Paper Co.



AD D E N DA

Attention is called to the fact that a considerable por-
tion of Mr. Grammer's discourse consists of what ap-
pears to be "Stock Arguments" of the railroads, used gen-
erally, in all sections of the country, as the following
would seem to indicate:



Mr. Grammer'H Speech at Indi-
anapolis. Nov. 19th, 190(>.



Speech of Samuel Spencer, at
Montgomery. Ala., Oct. 25th. lOOfi.



(Page 17.)
As before stated, Indiana was
no exception. Its genera! char-
ters and statutes granted in re-
sponse to the sentiments of the
people, make a history of public
aid and encouragement to the
builders of railroads, and contain
no hint of antagonistic public
sentiment, or of an ultimate pur-
pose of severe or drastic public
control or injury.



Alabama was no exception to
this rule of governmental en-
couragement. Its general stat-
utes and the charters granted by
its General Assembly in response
to the sentiments of its people,
make a history of puolic aid and
encouragement to the building
of railroads, and contain no hint
of antagonistic public sentiment
or of an ultimate purpose oi*
severe or drastic public control
or injury.



(Page 17.)
While public and government-
al assistance was, in due course,
forthcoming, with liberal exemp-
tion from governmental interfer-
ence in the management of such
properties, yet there were very


1 2 3 4 5 7

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 7 of 8)