Statement showing rates (in cents per 100 pounds) in effect on various commodities, from shipping points as shown to Utah common points, compared with those to San Francisco, proor to the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision in the original "Salt Lake case"; also showing present rates on the same commodities to the same points-Continued Shoe findings: Less than carload: Spices (less than carload): Statement showing rates (in cents per 100 pounds) in effect on various commodities, from shipping points as shown to Utah common points, compared with those to San Francisco, prior to the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision in the original "Salt Lake case"; also showing present rates on the same commodities to the same points-Continued Wagons, farm: Chicago, Ill.. St. Louis, Mo. From document on file with the Salt Lake Hardware Co. Mr. SALM. Mr. Chairman, with few exceptions railroads handle all kinds of freight in many different types of cars and through territories whose operating conditions vary considerably. It follows then, that it is impossible for them or anyone else to determine whether they are hauling a particular shipment at a loss or making a large profit on it. Low overhead rates reflect themselves in the aggregate revenues and when revenues decline intermediate traffic must pay the penalty. There is no other way out of it. With the fourth section relief the carriers obviously will not undertake to increase their low terminal rates. I might make an observation there that brings this situation right home, and right down to date, in connection with the oft-repeated statement that interior rates would not be increased. About a year ago now, the carriers throughout the United States filed an application with the Interstate Commerce Commission which was identified as I. C. C. docket ex parte 115. The purpose was seeking what was termed the general 10 percent increase in freight rates. And so in some localities the 10 percent was not applied and in some cases it was a little bit more. In connection with those applications, in that connection it is very interesting to note that in the applications filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission in connection with transcontinental traffic, there were very few exceptions. I do not know that there were any where it was proposed that the rate be increased 10 percent. They proposed a maximum increase on transcontinental traffic. Why? For the simple reason now if there was an increase in any degree, it would affect that traffic, and in connection with all fourth-section relief cases, last year, what would have happened? They would have increased the interior rates to get this revenue that they were losing and they made no effort to increase the rates to and from the terminals. So, I say that when they say the interior rates would not be increased as a result of the long-and-short-haul clause, I think they are very much mistaken. Samples of previous eastbound fourth section rates: Mr. F. H. Plasted spent considerable time undertaking to justify charging higher rates at intermediate destinations by not doing so at intermediate origins. Based on past practices what he really meant was that the railroads wanted to charge higher rates in western interior points but not in eastern interior points. Reference has been made. to the freight rate on wool. I took occasion to check this in the offices of the Interstate Commerce Commission and found the following situation existed in the eastbound rates to Boston--and incidentally there, I might make the observation, as you will notice, on this statement, that it was in 1922 that those fourth section rates were finally changed as to that particular commodity. The Interstate Commerce Commission refused to permit continued departures. From Pacific coast terminals in 1922 the rate was $1.95, on carlots of wool to Boston. From Salt Lake City the rate was $2.72, or 77 cents greater. After 1922, the situation reversed itself, as I point out in this other illustration. The rate from the Pacific terminals became $2.70, and the rate from Salt Lake City became $2.09. Salt Lake originally had a disadvantage of 77 cents. As a result of that change, Salt Lake City was given an advantage of 61 cents, or a 635-35- -44 |