The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countriesParsons, Frank
History
The heart of the railroad problem: The history of railway discrimination in the United States, the chief efforts at control and the remedies proposed, with hints from other countries
Parsons, Frank
Railroads -- Freight -- Rates -- United States; Railroads and state -- United States
“MR. LEEDS. Before.
“COMMISSIONER PROUTY. Are your agents authorized to make that discount?
“MR. LEEDS. No; they are not.
“COMMISSIONER PROUTY. Where is the agreement made, and with whom?
“MR. LEEDS. Myself.
“COMMISSIONER PROUTY. Do your agents there know anything about it?
“MR. LEEDS. I do not think they know what it is. They may know that
something of that kind is going on, but not what it amounts to.
“COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS. How does the shipper know that he can get this
$25 and $35 back?
“MR. LEEDS. Well, he probably could not ship if he did not know it.
“COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS. How does he find it out? You say your agents
there do not inform him.
“MR. LEEDS. Well, I spent about three months there in the past year.
“COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS. You have advised them all that that was done,
have you?
“MR. LEEDS. We sought the business.”
Mr. Watson appears to have received on California shipments about
$50,000 a year in rebates from the Fruit Growers’ Express (now an Armour
line), and perhaps the amount was nearer $100,000.[289]
The reduction of icing charges to favored shippers is, of course, only
another way of paying rebates. Yet the car-lines contend that icing
charges are compensation for a private service which is not part of the
transportation service, and therefore outside the Interstate law. The
Interstate Commerce Commission says: “It has been very customary in the
past, and the practice still prevails in some quarters, to allow to
particular shippers a reduction in these refrigerator charges. Testimony
recently taken at Chicago shows that one large shipper of California to
various eastern destinations was allowed concessions of this kind, which
probably aggregated in a series of seven or eight years several hundred
thousand dollars.”[290]
The testimony of H. J. Streychmans before the Commission at Chicago, May
12, 1905, throws much light on the Armour Car business. Mr. Streychmans
was for over 4 years, from April, 1900, to August 1904, in the employ of
Armour & Company, and the Fruit Growers’ Express, one of their car-line
systems. One of his duties was to check ice bills. He says the Armour
Car-Lines generally pay $2 to $2.50 a ton for ice, except on the St.
Paul and Northwestern and Erie. On the Northwestern the Armours paid $1
a ton for ice, and on the Erie $1.25 or $1.50. “These were the main
lines. The Northwestern and St. Paul handled practically all the green
fruit shipments, and the Erie used to get the shipments east.” The
profits were “five or six hundred percent.” On the very long hauls the
percentage was not so high. From Fresno, California, to Boston, for
example, the cost of icing was about $38 and the Armour tariff charge
for icing was $125, leaving a margin of $87 a car.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account