Reduction of passenger rates : some startling facts

Reduction of Passenger Rates
MOTION BY JOSEPH I. BROWN, COMMISSIONER

'The Passenger Rate Reduction Reaches the Masses."
"The Freight Rate Reduction Reaches the Classes-and Lodges With Them.''

.

.

.The Railr~ad Commissio:n Brings About

A REDUCTION OF $2,000,.000 IN THE FREIGHT RATES ;

Yet the Prices of (ioods are Far Higher Than They Were Before the Freight Rates Were Reduced.

SOME STARTLING FACTS.

ATLANTA, GA. THE FRANKLIN-TURNER COMPANY
PRINTii:RS, PUBLISHERS, (BINDERS
1901

- IN RE REDUCTION OF PASSENGER RATES.
MOTION BY JOSEPH M. ~ROWN, COMMISSIONER.
WHEREAS, On August 3, 1904, Hon. J. Pope Brown, at that
time chairman of this Commission, after reciting a number ?f instances in which railroad companies in Georgia had either altogether :f;Liled or been dilatory in building or improving passenger depots for the accommodation of the traveling public, made the following declaration and motion:
"Many other instances might be shown where the railroads show an utter disregard for the comfort and conveniences of their patrons, but the above is sufficient. Now, if the railroads would make all the improvements which in my opinion ought to be made in the way of providing more adequate accommodations to keep up with the progress of the towns through which they pass; make their depots more attractive, more convenient and comfortable, and provide sheds to protect their passengers from rain, sun, etc., I should not favor a reduction in the rate; but under existing conditions, I think a three-cent rate is excessive and that a two-cent rate on all main lines is commensurate with the service rendered. I therefore move that on the following lines the passenger rate be made two cents per mile after September I 5, 1904, namely:",
In the list of roads he then named The Central of Georgia Railway between Griffin (Ga.) and Chattanooga (Tenn.), and between Macon (Ga.) and Columbia (Ala.).
The motion made by my esteemed friend, the chairman, therefore, was not one to make "just and reasonable rates" and "to prohibit unjust discrimination," which are the two results this Commission was organized to accomplish; but it was avowedly a motion to punish the railroads for not providing "attractive, convenient and comfortable" passenger deJ)Ots. The statement was uneauivocally made that "if the rail-

4

roads would make all the improvements" referred to in the motion, "I should not favor a reduction in the rate." - This recital of the reasons for making the motion, in the opinion of the majority of the Commission would have been fatal to its validity if attacked in the courts.
The further pr-oposition that the Railroad Commission of

Georgia should order the reduction of the passenger rates of

the Central of Georgia Railway from points in Georgia to

points in Tennessee and Alabama was one to directly attempt to interfere with interstate commerce and therefore in itself void.
The hearing on this motion was from time tQ time post~

poned, because the Commission was in almost daily conference or correspondence with the traffic officials or higher officers of

the railroads on the subject of the reduction of the interstate

and intrastate rates on freight applying to practically all points

in Georgia.

-

After at length receiving a definite refusal by the railroads to reduce the interstate rates to Georgia points, on freight, the Commission, to enable Georgia manufacturers to compete in

Georgia with manufacturers whose plants were out of the State, issued its Circular No. 30r, reducing rates between cer~ tain points in Georgia on sixty-three items of freight manufac~ tured in this State; and, to help the farmers who raise syrup,

its Circular No. 302, reducing the rates in Georgia on syrup shipped from Georgia points of production. It was stated in Circular No. 301 that other like reductions would be made,

the Commission avowing its intent to enable the Georgian to.

trade with the Georgian.

The enforcement of these circulars was temporarily enjoined,
on prayer of the Central Trust Company, of New York, and
of the railroad companies interested, by the United States Cir~
cuit Court in the Northern District of Georgia.. After the pleadings had been filed in court, however, by. the complain~

ants and this Commission, the- former, through Mr. Ed. Bax-

ter, their leading attorney, made to the Attorney-General o

5

Georgia ~proposition to the effect that if the Railroad Commission would abrogate its Circulars Nos. 301 and 302, he would advis~ his clients to revise the interstate rate adjustment against which this Commission, speaking for the people of this State, was contending, adding the significant words, "And if such revision. should be made, the result might be satisfactory to the Georgia Railroad C~mmission."
After the receipt of this proposition, the Railroad Commission held a conference with the Attorney-General and associate counsel, which resulted in an acceptance' of the proposition made by the counsel of the railroad companies.
The next morning, after reading in open court the Commission's order of revocation of Circulars 301 and 302, the Attorney-General made the following public statement:

"When the character of this litigation is considered and the

issues raised understood, involving, as it does, only commodity .

rates from the city of Atlanta to four other Georgia cities, and

from each o these cities back to Atlanta, and the contemplated

action in'vol'l!Jng rates wh4~ch affect and concern every city,

town and hamlet in Georgia, to imperil this boon by doggedly

and unnecessarily insisting upon holding this case in court

would be conduct that could scarcely hope to escape the gravest

censure. The State has nothing to lose by this course, but

everything to gain. If the railroads should conclude in their

conference that it is impossible to relieve the situation, or un-

desirable to do so, the Commission, almost in the twinkling of

an eye, may re-enact these or other.circulars, and in so doing

will haye gained an advantage immeasurably greater than the

litigation now being pressed.-"



After the withdrawal of this case from the court the railroad officials set themselves to the task of readjusting the interstate rates into Georgia. Vice-President Culp, of the Southern Railway, and Vice-President Winburn, of the Central of Georgia Railway, came, first, separately, and, afterwards, together to the office of this Commission for conference on the subject in question, and. a:t length the railroad companies published reduced interstate rates to practically all Georgia points except the coast cities.

6
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION SECURED GREAT REDUCTIONS IN THE INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES.
. That these reductions in the interstate rates to points in every quarter of Georgia were the results of the work of the Railroad Commission of Georgia is proven b;y the following testimopy of railway officials given under oath:
"Since February I, I905, large reductions have been made ~n rates on interstate traffic .to points in Georgia from the entire territory on and north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers
and west of the Mississippi river. * * * *
"Attached hereto and markedExhibit No. 3, is a statement showing reductions in rates from Virginia cities to Georgia
common points, effective February I, I905. * * * *
"In order to preserve a fair and just relation of rates, reductions were also made from Nashville, Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tennessee; Florence, Sheffield, Decatur, Birmingham, Anniston, Montgomery, Selma and Mobile, Alabama; Meridian, Mississippi, and numerous other points to points in
Georgia. * * * *
"To whatever extent rates to local points in Georgia, on interstate traffic, are made on a combination basis, or on basis of differentials above the common points, there were resulting reductions to such local points corresponding to the reductions to the same common points.
((This Commission (the Railroad Commission of Georg-ia), h.ad no lttle to do in bringing a1bout these redu.ctions, wh.ich represent an enormous saving to the people of Georgw.))(Signed) L. Green, Freight Traffic Manager, Southern Railway.
"These reductions in. interstate rates were the ou.tgrowth of a li#ga.tion between the Rwilroa:d Commission a:nd the carrt:ers over Circu.Zarrs Nos. JOI arnd 302 of the Railroad Comrm~s sion. They were voluntary reductions, made by the carriers for the purpose of satisfying the people of Georgia a.nd meeting the views of the Railroa:d Commission. They were not made because the carriers considered them necessary, or the then prevailing rates too high; but they were 1nade in a spi6t

7
of conciliation and to meet the views of this Commissionf'(Signed) W. A. Winburn, Second Vice-President, Central of Georgia Railway.
"Table 13, Exhibit M, contains a statement of the freight rates ~tween important points in Georgia, located on the lines of this respondent, which, after being in controversy and the subject of considemtion for a long period before this Commissi.on, in the case of the Atlanta Freight Bureau, were agreed upon by this Commission with the various milways, including the Seaboard Air Line Railway, as equitable alike to the people of Georgia interested and to the railroads interested, and became effective May 20, 1905. This reduct/Jon of mtes followed the reduction in interstate rates, effective February I, 1905, which was ma1de a:s the resu:lt of the negotia1tions had with and in deference to the vie-&s of this Commission."( Signed) A. Pope, Assistant General Freight Agent, Seaboard Ait Line Railway.
The above are extracts from affidavits sworn to by the officials named at hearings, during November and December, 1905, before this Commission, on motions made to reduce their general local rates in Georgia.
Further proof that the reduction in interstate rates from practically all points in the United States to practically all points in- Georgia, except to those on or near the coast, was the essence, in fact was the very thing involved in this Commission's agreement to abrogate its Circulars Nos. 301 and 302, which, after the refusal of the railroad companies to change the interstate rates, had been issued by this Commission to relieve the people of this State, as far as la:y in its power, of the discriminations caused by those interstate rates, is found in the following extract from a letter written by Mr. Ed. Baxter, general counsel of the railroads, to Hon. Jno. C. Hart, Attorney-General of Georgia, dated April 12, 1905, and on file in the Attorney-General's office, viz.:
"You will doubtless remember that no reference wa:s made to mtes on State traffic, transportation of which began and ended within the State of Georgia," etc.
Finally, as proving that this Commission understood, just
- - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _cc___ _ _ _ _ _ __

8
like the railroads did, that its consent to the abrogation of
its Circulars Nos. 30I and 302 was linked to the agreement of the railroad companies to reduce the interstate rates to Geor-
gia points, I quote the following extracts from its thirty-second
report to .the Governor, dated February IS, I90S:
"The. Commission in September, I904, promulgated Circulars 30I and 302, which lessened the rates on various com-
modities to and from different points within the State. * * * *
Before these circulars could become effective, the Commission was served with an injunction froin the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia, at the instance of the Central Trust Company of New York, and of various railroads in this State, claiming to be affected thereby, temporarily enjoining the Commission from enforcing the said circulars. These cases were set for hearing, and continued from time to time, for one cause and another, until November 28, I904, when a hearing was partially had on the merits of the cases. Pending the hearing on the question of permanent injunction, a p-ropositon WQIS made by the leadng counsel for the railroads) to the Attorney-General of the State) who ably rep-resented the Commission) an.d to the CommissonJ whereby it was proposed that, if Circulars 301 and 302 should be abrogated by the Commission, then the roads would dismiss their various causes ag-ainst the Commission from the courts. The roads suggested further) that if this were done) they would undertake to make such reduction a:nd revision of rates as would be acceptable to the Com1m'ssion. Upon the advice of the Attorney-General, the Commission deemed it wise to- adopt this course, which was accordingly done. As a1 result of this course on th'e pa~t of the CommissionJ there have been already large reductions made in intersta1te rates by the various roads entering the State) with the promise of further reductions in interstate rates."
The above report was signed qy Ron. J. Pope Brown, chair-
man of the Commission, and by the other Commissioners. ITs ~RY DATE (February IS, I90S), IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT
IT COULD REFER ONLY TO THE REDUCTIONS IN INTERSTATE
RATESJ for the reductions in rates between practically all com-
mon points in the State (and foreshadowed in the last sentence

9
above quoted) were not made till May 20, 1905.' I have quoted thus freely from the court records and from other sworn testimony, because it has been repeatedly stated upon the stump and by prominent Georgia newspapers that "the Railroad Commission of Georgia had nothing to do with securing the reductions in interstate rates."

THE RAILROAD COMMISSION GAVE LITTLE AND SECURED MUCH.

The results of the proceedings abov,e narrated may be crys-

tallized in the following statement: After exha1,;1sting argument

in its attempt to induce the railroad companies to make such

interstate rates as would enable the manufacturers, jobbers

and other business men and the farmers in Georgia to market

their wares in Georgia on a basis of fair competition with

business men shipping like products into Georgia from other

States, the Railroad Commission of Georgia issued its Cir-

culars 301 and 302, covering sixty-four items of freight manu-

factured or produced in Georgia and shipped to points in

Georgia. The railroad companies secured a temporary injunc-

tion against the enforcement of the rates named in the two

circulars. when the pleadings were read in open court, the

railroad companies were manifestly so impressed with the

strength of the Railroad Commission's case that, tlY-ough their

leading counsel, they immediately sought a compromise. After

negotiation, the Railroad Commission withdrew the two cir-

culars which named rates on sixty-four items of freight between less than a hundred' P'm~nts in Georgia1) and the railroad

companies, to comply with their parts of the agreement, re-

duced thg interstate rates from pmctz~cally all points in the

United States to practically ail! points in Georgia1) on 3)082

teniS of freight.



After the settlement of the litigation whereby the Rail-

road Commission of Georgia secured for the people such

gratifying reductions in the interstate rates, the Commission

10
took up with the railroad companies the question of a readjustment of the intrastate rates, a readjustment which involved in some cases reductions of more that $30 per car. In fact, between two of the centers (Atlanta and Valdosta) the reduction on first-class freight was $72 per car.
Several weeks were consumed in the negotiations which ended in the promulgation of reduced rates, taking effect May 20, r905, and applying on more than J,ooo items of freight, qetween all the cities of Georgia-the reductions affecting the coast cities as well as the interior -cities. An<f, as rates to vastly the greater proportion of the local points in Georgia base on the rates to the cities nearest such local points, it may justly be asserted that the intrastate reductions, forced by the Commission, applied to practically all points in Georgia.
THE ''PORT RATE" PETITION DID NOT ASK FOR REDUCED RATES ON COTTON RAISED BY GEORGIA FARMERS.
The freight rate problem which the Railroad Commission had thus in a measure worked out had been a very complicated one. For upwards of two years and a half the Atlanta Freight Bureau had held -before the Commission a petition for reduced rates between Atlanta and the ports of Savannah and Brunswick on practically all articles manufactured, and on grain, hay and flour which are shipped into Georgia; but ma,king no mention of cotton, which is raised by Georgia farmers and shipped out of the State. This petition, popularly known as the :'Port-Rate Petition," had been dismissed, after thorough consideration, on April r7, r903, by the Commission, at that time composed of Ron. Spencer R. Atkinson, Ron. J. Pope Brown and Ron. G. Gunby Jordan, on the ground that it would work discrimination in favor of Atlanta, as against other Georgia cities. It was subsequently filed again before the Commission by the Atlanta Freight Bureau, and with it was pressed a petition having for its object the stay of discrimi-

__,_.,..
11
nation against Atlanta and in favor of Birmingham and Mont-. gomery, Alabama, and other cities, in the interstate rates.
A painstaking, patient and critical examination of the figures involved in the entire case revealed three facts, viz.:
First. That the so-caiied "port-rate" asked for by the Atlanta Freight Bureau, would, if granted, make a reduction of the rates then in effect between Atlanta and the J?Orts, on the thirteen regular classes, of 38 per cent. ; in the "special iron" rates of more than so per cent. ; and in the special rates asked on agricultural implements, bf!gging, canned goods, molasses, cotton ties, etc., of more than 40 per cent. These rates so urgently and persistently petitioned for by the Atlanta Freight Bureau it was manifestly out of the power of this Commission to grant, because the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Smyth vs. Ames, 169 U. S., pp. 466-550, etc., had declared confiscatory and annuiied a tariff made by the Legislature of Nebraska, which involved a reduction of 29~ per <:ent. of the revenues of the carriers in effect in that State. The paraiiel would hold in the case in point, because the Atlanta' Freight Bureau, in its "Port-rate Petition," asked, "That in the event the Commission should be of the opinion that any {:hange in the existing rates as requested would require a re- -adjustment of other rates to and from points within the State of Georgia, that the schedule of intrastate rates promulgated by this Commission be so revised and changed as to establish a just and equitable relation of rates." To establish wi'th the "port rate" this "just and equitable relation of rates," it wotild have become necessary to radicaiiy reduce the rates between aii Georgia points, the reductions averaging more than 29~ per cent. of the rates in effect, and in some cases exceeding 55 per cent. of them. The majority of the Commission, viz. : Ron. H. Warner Hill and myself, hence saw no legal way whereby the petition of the Atlanta Freight Bureau for the "port rate"
to Atlanta could be granted. The chairman, Ron. J. Pope
Brown, for reasons placed on the official file and published in the press, voted to grant the petition.

I~
Secondly, The officers of the Atlanta Freight Bureau, while pressing for more than two years and a half the petition for figures banned by the Supreme Court, as "port-rates," to prevent discrimination in Georgia against Atlanta, and in favor of Virginia cities and of Birmingham, Alabama, and other cities in other States, had never advised themselves of the fact that the railroad companies in Georgia had so changed the rates named by the Railroad Commission, between the cities in Georgia that the discrimination against Atlanta and in favor of other cities in Georgia was more radical than was the discrimination against her in the interstate rates. It was not the duty of the Railroad Commission of Georgia "to protect Atlanta against other Georgia cities ;" but, having years ago made a schedule of freight rates which gave all Georgia cities equal rates in Georgia for equal distances, it was its duty to require the railroads, if they reduced those rates from some common points, to reduce them equitably from all other common points. This the railroads had not done. Taking first class for example, they had made the following reductions per IOO pounds: From Savannah to Columbus 27 cents; to Macon, 24 cents;
to Athens, 3 I cents; to Dalton, 57 cents; to Rome, 36 cents:
from Augusta to Columbus, 30 cents; to Dalton, 34 cents; to Rome 37 cents: from Brunswick to Rome, 37 cents; to Athens, 41 cents; to Dalton, 41 cents: from Rome to Athens, 13 cents; to Columbus, 22 cents; to Augusta, 33 cents: from Dalton to
Athens, 14 cents; to Columbus, 25 cents; to Macon, 23 cents;
to Augusta, 30 cents: from Macon to Athens, 9 cents; to Dalton, 27 cents; from Athens to Rome, 17 cents; to Dalton, 18. cents, besides like reductions from other points. From Atlanta) howe-uer) the reduction to Columbus was 2 cents and to Ma:con 2 cents) whue to Rome) Dalton and Athens there was no reduction whatever.
It was therefore the duty of the Railroad Commission to. at least in a measure, restore the equilibrium in its rates which the railroads had disturbed to Atlanta's detriment, regardless of the fact that the officers of the Atla~zta. Freight Bureau had

13
not become aware tha:t their city was discrinn~nated alf{ainst in the cases in point, and in very many other cases of intrastate
changes Jw the railroads of the Commission's mileage rates.
In requiring the new. intrastate adjustment, however, it was necessary that careful consideration be given to the fact that the reductions secured in the interstate rates had been greater to Atlanta than to other Georgia cities, hence that the intrastate reductions be so figured as to preserve the general symmetry demanded by equity in the rate structure affecting all Georgia cities. This, it can be asserted, was the substantial result of the interstate reductions to Georgia cities, taking effect February I, 1905, which the Commission secured by compromise, ~s b:efore shown, and of the intrastate reductions which the Commission required the railroads to make, taking effect May 20, 1905.
Thirdly, It was ascertained by the Railroad Commission that the complaint of the Atlanta Freight Bureau that the rates from weste\n points to Birmingham, Alabama, were so adjusted as to unjustly discriminate against Atlanta was correct. It was also shown that other Georgia cities were unjustly discriminated 'against in the interstate rates. The Commission~s commit~ee who figured the interstate rates from western points developed a status not before discovered, viz.: that the rates from Ohio river points to Chattanooga, Tenn., were less per ton per mile than were the rates from the same points through Chattanooga to Atlanta; and that the rates from Nashville, Tenn., to Macon were less per ton per mile than were the rates from Louisville, Ky., through Nashville to Macon. Thus was violated the very cardinal rule of rate-making, viz. : that the longer the distance the less per mile the rate; and in each case cited the beneficiary was a city outside of Georgia. The readjustment of interstate rates to every quarter of Georgia which the Railroad Commission secured as the result of the compromise in the United States. Circuit Court already refe;red to, put the rates more nearly on a proper basis.

11

FREIGHT RATES IN GEORGIA LOWER THAN
IN ADJOINING STATES.
It is in order here to state that although the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Smyth vs. Ames, 169 U. S.,
pp. 466-570, etc., made it impossible for this Commission to
grant the "port rates" asked for to Atlanta by the Atlanta
Freight Bureau, yet the rates from the Georgia ports really
secured for Atlanta and ot]:Ier Georgia cities in the schedule
of intrastate rates made effective May 20, 1905, gave not only
to Atlanta but to the other Georgia cities also lower rates from
the Georgia ports than are the rates from Charleston to South
Carolina cities and lower than are the rates from Mobile to all
Alabama cities save to Montgomery and Selma, which have
all-water rates. The comparative rates in question are as fol-
lows:
RATES FROM SAVANNAH TO GEORGIA CITIES.
415 -CL-A-SS-ES-..-....-...-. ...-. ..-....-.....-... -.1 -2 -3 - - -6 -A -B -C-D- -E--F--H-
To Augusta............................ 46 37 28 22 18 17 10 18 11 10 18 22 27 " Albany................................ 66 59 . 51 43 35 29 20 25 15 14 35 31 43 " Americus............... ............ 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 16 15'h 35 &3 43 " Atlanta............ ...... ..... ...... 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 20 19 35 38 43 " Athens................................ 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 20 19 35 38 43 " Bainbridge........ ... . .... .... .... 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 15 14 35 33 43 " Columbus............ ............... 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 20 19 35 38 43 " Cordele................................ 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 15 14 35 31 43 " Dawson............ ....... .. ... ...... 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 19 18 35 38 43 " Dublin.................... .. ... ... .... 63 59 48 40 34 28 18 24 15 14 32 31 40 " Fitzgerald........................... 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 15 14 35 31 43 " Hawkinsville...................... 63 56 48 40 34 28 18 24 15 14 32 31 40 " Macon................................. 63 56 48 40 34 28 18 24 16 15 32 33 40 " Milledgeville........... ............ 63 56 48 40 34 28 18 24 16 15 321 33 40 " Quitman........... .................. 66 59 51 43 35 29 20 25 15 14 35 31 43 " Tifton................................. 66 59 51 43 35 29 21 25 15 14 35 31 43 " Thomasville........................ 66 59 51 43 35 29 21 25 15 14 35 31 43 " Valdosta........... .... ....... .... ... 66 59 51 43 35, 29 21 25 15 13 35 29 43

RATES FROM CHARLESTON TO SOUTH CAROLINA CITIES.

I -CL-AS-SE-S ...-......-. --.....-...

-1

-2

-3-4-

-5

-6

-A-B-

-c

-D-E-

F H
-~-

To Columbia............................ 51 46 35 28 22 21 12 18 12 12 15 24 34

" Spartanburg....................... 70 60 50 43 35 28 19 24 23 17 35 43j 44

" Greenville........................... 73 63 53 45 37 30 20 25 24 18 37 45' 46

Columbia is opposite Augusta; Spartanburg and Greenville are opposite Atlanta.

RATES FROM MOBILE TO ALABAMA ClUES.

I CLASSES.........:::.:.:.:..:.:::.:.:.:.:::.:.:.::_!:_ I~,~ ~ ~ __.!-!..~~~II_E._~~..!._
I To Birmingham....................... 79 69 58 45 42 31 20 23 16 12 39 24 25
" Anniston............................ 84 73 64 49 43 32 20 27 20 16 39 32 42

" Calera................................. 72 62 54 49 44 36 35 38 23 15 40 44 40

'' Decatur.............................. 79 72 55 41 37 29 20 27 20 16 32 32 36

" Eufaula.............................. 89 76 67 51 45 34 20 27 20 16 41 32 36

" Gadsden.............................. 84 73 64 49 43 32 20 27 20 16 39 32 36

" Huntsville........... ............... 79 72. 55 41 37 29 20 27 20 16 32 32 36

:: Montgomery....................... .. Selma.................................

50 50

40J 40,

3300i1

24 24

20 20

20 20

15 15

20 20

14 14

12 12

24 30 19 24 30 19

Ozark ................................ :1 00 85 70, 6~ 46 43 33 40 29 25 49 50 49

" Opelika .............................. 1 89 76 67 51 45 84 20 27 20 16 41 32 36

"Talladega............................ 84 73 64 49 43 32 20 27 20 16 39 32 42 " Tuscaloosa.......................... ~ 79 69 58 45 42 31 20 23 22 16 39 36 27

" Troy.................................... 92 78 65 55 461 40 33i 40 29i 25 45 50 45

Montgomery and Selma are connected with Mobile by the Alabama river, on which steamboats run daily, in active competition with the rail lines.
When it is held in mind that the ocean rates from New York and other Eastern cities are higher to Mobile than they are to Savannah, it will be readily realized that the rates which the Railroad Commission caused to be made from Georgia ports to Georgia cities enable the latter to easily compete with the trade centers in the two States which lay broadside to and bordering Georgia, unless we concede, which I certainly do not, that the Georgian, with less rates than the Carolinian and Alabamian, can not hold his own in competition with them.
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION'S GREAT WORK IN REDUCING FREIGHT RATES.
But the chief point of interest to the people of Georgia is the answer to the question, HOW GREAT A REDUCTION IN THE GROSS SUM PAID AS FREIGHT RATES DID THE RAILROAD COMMISSION SECURE FOR THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA in the readjustments in interstate rates, effective February I, 1905, and in intrastate rates, effective May 20, 1905.
To arrive at the answer we must, first, ascertain, at least approximately, the total number of carloads of freight han-

16

..

died per annum in Georgia; secotfcily, the percentage of the total tonnage which was included in the classes reduced; and, thirdly, the average reduction per car of those jncluded in the classes reduced. The printed reports of the Southeastern Car Service Association and the special reports made by the separate roads to this office answer the first part of the question, the classified tonnage reports of the railroads running through every quarter of Georgia furnish an average basis for arriving at the second part, and the application of the rates in the classes reduced to the percentage found under the second head will give us the third.
First, The approximate number of cars handled at sixtynine of the cities, chief junction points and a few of the larger local stations during the year r9o6 by the railroads in Georgia as per reports made to this office was 905,276, of which I49,234 held freight in the classes in which rates were reduced. This number does not include cars handled at about a thousand local stations and at minor junction points.
Secondly, Of the total traffic, owing to the different propor. tions of the items in the classification handled in the sep'!rate
sections and localities, varying percentages at the several points were included in the classes on which the reductions were secured by the Ra.ilroad Commission of Georgia, February r, I905, and May 20, I905, as before shown.
Thirdly, The average reduction per carload of JO,ooo pounds in the classes of the interstate rates reduced was $r5.27 at Atlanta, $r6.87 at Rome, $r3.68 at Macon, $r3.82 at Augusta, $r3.74 at Columbus, $r2.89 at Athens, $r2.23 at Albany, $r2.30 at Thomasville and varying amounts at other points. There were also coordinate reductions made in the interstate rates on a number of commodities, for instances, on starch, $2r.oo per car; on laundry soap, $rs.oo per car; on agricultural implements, $r2.00 p~r car; on molasses, $r8.oo per car; on canned goods, $rs.oo per car; on boots and shoes) $~7.00 per car.
The reductions per carlo~d of JO,ooo pounds in the intrastate

17
rates ranged from (on first-class) $72.00, Atlanta to Valdosta; $36.oo, Atlanta to Columbus; $27.00, Atlanta to Thomasville; $24.00, Atlanta to Athens; $2r.oo, Atlanta to Macon; $r8.oo, Atlanta to Hawkinsville; $r8.oo, Dalton to Athens; $33.00 Rome to Athens; $r8.oo, Rome to Columbus; $2r.oo, Columbus to Dalton, $42.00 Savannah to Fitzgerald; $39.00, Savannah to Quitman; $27.00, Savannah to Bainbridge; $24.00, Savannah to Valdosta; $9.00, Savannah to Columbus; $45.00, Brunsu.n:ck to Fitzgerald; $27.00, Brunswick to Bainbridge; and (on second-class) $39.00, Brunswick to Fitzgerald; $24.00, Savannah to Quitman; $r2.oo Savannah to Tifton; $r2.oo from Savannah and Brunswick to Cordele, Albany, Americus, Atlanta, Athens, Columbus and Dawson; $27.0?, Rome toAthens; $24.00, Columbus to Dalton; and (on third class) $3o.oo, Brunswick to Fitzgerald;' $r2.oo, Savannah to Valdosta; and (on class A cotton ties) $r2.oo, Macon to Athens; $33.00, Brunswick to Fitzgerald; $27.00, Savannah to Valdosta; and (on sixth class) $r2.oo from Savannah and Brunswick to Americus, Atlanta, Athens, Columbus and Dawson; $9.00, Savannah to Bainbridge, $6.oo, Savannah to Macon, Cordele, Dublin and Milledgeville; to $3.00 per car Augusta to Columbus, on sixth class.
Therefore, applying to the cars in interstate movement loaded with freight in the reduced classes the ascertained average class reductions in the interstate rates at each point, and to those with like freight moving between common points within the State the nearest attainable figure indicated as the average reduction from such points in the intrastate rates, we find that the gross reduction in freight rates received in February and May, r905, through the instrumentality of the Railroad Commission of Georgia by the sixty-nine Georgia cities and towns named in the table following, based on the busittess of r9o6, was $r,896, I99-4I.
The above figures do not include the reductions in rates to other junction points from which no tonnage reports were received, a, for instance, Winder, Bremen, Vidalia, Stillmore,

18
Jesup, etc., and they include only about twenty-five local stations, although there are about one t'housand of them in Georgia, some of which handle from 500 to I,OOO cars each, yearly, of which at least 20 per cent. are in classes in which freight rates were reduced. It would seem therefore that zo,ooo cars is a small estimate of those moving to the other junction points and to the one thousand local stations under the reduced rates.
And the vast majority of these local stations received, on business shipped directly to them, the same reductions a8 did the cities on which their through rates base. For example, when the rate on dry goods from New York to Atlanta was reduced 9 cents per roo pounds, there was a coordinate reduction of 9' cents per roo pounds from New York to Smyrna, Dallas, Douglasville, Fairburn, Fayetteville, Jonesboro, ~Ic Donough, Decatur, Lawrenceville and Norcross and all other local stations whose through rates base on Atlanta's and go up or down with hers.
It is unmistakably true that a great proportion of the business of local stations is received from Georgia cities which have already received the reduced rates applying to it; but it is equally true that points like Canton, Calhoun, Monticello, Rochelle, Camilla, etc., receive a large pr?portion of their goods directly from Eastern and Western sources of supply. On these goods they get the same reduction in rates as does the jobber at the nearest basing point. Under these conditions it can easily be seen that even after we eliminate from the calculation the cars moving to local stations from distributing centers on whit":h cars the reduction in rates had already been counted, there are still left many thousands of carloads on which we have not yet counted the reduction.
As the highest average reduction in interstate rates at any center was $r6.87 and as the lowest and that is one of the smallest, viz.: Hawkinsville, was $ro.2o per carload of 30,000 pounds it is immediately apparent that on ro,ooo cars the total amount of reduction in the interstate rates alone exceeds $I2.S,-

19
voo. If there were only 20,000 of such cars the gross reduction in the above rates on business going to and from the one thousand local stations exceeded $250,000. And, as sixty-nine cities and towns in Georgia handled upwards of 149,000 cars with freight in the reduced classes, it seems not unreasonable to estimate that the other junction points and r,ooo local stations handled 20,000 such cars.
And to the above figures, we must add thousands of carloads which represent the business shipped from the various tradecenters and manufacturing points in the State to the multitudes of points in the State covered by the reductions in intrastate rates, effective May 20, 1905. These reductions must have averaged at least $roper carload.
THE.REDUCTION IN FREIGHT RATES EXCEEDED $2,000,000.
Therefore, when to the foregoing figures we add the reductions in interstate and intrastate rates on various commodities shipped to the cities and to the local stations whose. rates base upon them, even though we make a liberal deduction from the latter to offset business upon which reductions might be counted twice, the statement becomes impregnable that the gross reduction per anmMn in freight ra1tes secured for the people of Georgia by their Ra~lroad Commission1 based on the business hand:led in I9061 exceeded $2100opoo.
The table showing the approximate amount of reduction in freight rates to the points named follows:
It should also be qorne in mind in reading the figures in the table that not only were t4ere no reductions in interstate rates to Savannah and Brunswick, but, in consequence of so great a proportion of their business consisting of cotton, lumber, naval stores and fertilizers bn which rates were not reduced, the percentage of reduction in the intrastate rates was materially less than that of Atlanta, which manufactures and , handles in .large quantities a greater variety of goods than any

20
other city in the southeast. T'o Augusta., also, there were no
reductions in interstate rates from eastern cities. At some of the points named the number of cars shown is less than the total number handled, caused by the failure of a portion of the roads to make statistical reports.

AMOUNT OF' REDUCTIONS IN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE RATES SECURED F'OR THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA AT THE PoiN.Ts NAMED) BY THE RAILROAD CoMMISSION. FIGURED ON CARS MOVING IN THE YEAR I906.

City.

Total Number of Cars Handled.

Acworth ....... 0 0 0. 0

895

Adairsville. .

. 0









2,394

Albany. . . . . . . .

I6,750

Americus. . . . . . . . . . ro,546

Arlington.. . . . . . . . .

I,657

Athens.. . . . . . . . . . . . . I9,632

Atlanta.. . .

. . I87,0I9

Augusta.. . .

62,490

Bainbridge. .

5,676

Barnesville. .

2,390

Belair. . . . . . . . . .

2 ,64o

Brunswick.. . . . . . . , . 5I,35I

Camak.. . . . . . . . . . . . . I,834

Campania. 4,920 0











Carrollton 3,567 0











Cartersville. . . . . . . . . . . 14,373

Cedartown. . . . . . . . . . . . 9,834

Conyers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,598

Cordele.. . . 0. 0. . . . Io,855

Columbus. . . . . . . . . . . . 47,240

Covington ...... 0. . . 3,458

Cuthbert.. . . . . . . . . . . . I,9I4

Dalton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,690

iDawson. . ... . . . . . . . . . s,820

Dublin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,268

East Point. . . . . . . . . . . 3,787

Elberton.. . . . . . . . . . . . s,oig

Fitzgerald. 5,494 0





















Number of Cars Taking Reduced
Rates.
295 88o
2,988 2,230
230 4,46I 45,30I g,I24
564 4I2
396 3,386
75
369
6I5 I,985 2,257
390 I,706 9,266
843 302 2,500 I;I47 706
744 1,095
926

Amount of
Reduction.
$2,I90 00
7,744 00 3IA55 I6 24,447 26
2,432 20 50,7I0 80 673,60! 59 87,230 g8
8,339 90 4,652 00 1,405 so 38,570 00
842 46 3,651 oo
9,39I 05 27,590 I3 28,68g 67
4,68o oo 18,915 52 130,742 00
9,339 57 3,367 23 3-7,7I3 65 I2,5.72 g6
6,I07 6o ro,863 8o 12,518 30
9,490 8o

--~-
21

Forsyth . . .
Fort Gaines

. .
..

.....

. .

. .

... . .

.. . .

1,6s6 1,ll7

Fort Valley .. .. . . . . . .. Gainesville .. .. . . . . . . . .
Greensboro .. .. . . . . . . . Griffin .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . Hawkinsville .. .. . . . . . .
La Grange .. .. . . . . . . . .
Lindale .. .. . . . . . . . ... Lithonia .. .. .. . . . . . . Macon .. . . . . .. . . . . . . Madison .. .. . . . . Marietta .. . . .. . . . .

3.449 4,SoS 1,299 6,179
7.474 4.3S6 2,04S S,636 73,S42 2,339 6,476

Milledgeville .. .. . . . . 6,196

Monroe .. . . ..

1,707

2S6
193 596 696 214 1,o8o
1,207 1,33S'
370 64S 13,6So 56S 1,673 1,423 320

MonteztUna ..
Moultrie .. . . ..

2,962

490

2,173

326

Newnan ..

0,



7,012

Quitman .. .. ' ..

.. Rockmart ..
Rome ..

..
. .

. .
. .

. .
. .

Savannah .... . . ..

2,335
7933 24,790 . .152,S91

Social Circle .... ..
Sparta .... .. .. . .

3.077 1,312

1,748 350
1,427
5343 S,071
577 197

Stone Mountain ....
Thomasville .. .. . .

2,593 S,027

233 1,540

Thompson .. .. . . . .

Tifton ....
Toccoa .. .

.....

.. .

.

. . . .

. . . .

1,966
7,512 2,003

295 1,1 II
314 .

Union Point.. . . .. . . . .
Valdosta .. .. .. . . . . . . Warrenton .. .. . . . . .. . Washington .. .. .. . . Waycross .. .. . . . . . . Waynesboro .. . . .. . .

2,077 I0,590
1,079 2,69S S,72S
2,991

311 1,560
162
405 1,309
516

West Point .. .. . . . .

Tallapoosa .. .. . . .. ...

Blakely .. . . .
Chickamauga ..
Eatonton .. ..

. .. . . . .. .. . .

.
.
.

...
. . . . . .

Millen .. . . ... . . ..

2,196
4,671
3.731 6,539 2,014 1,663

'540 S41
644 sss
504 2S7

--- ---

905,276 149,234

$3,130 00 2,144 90 7,295 s6 S,2S1 oo 2,255 00 13,670 00 7,S16 6o
17,759 75 5,2SS 33 7,902 so 162,rr2 S4
5.976 30 22,S9S 88 1S,66o 2S
3,900 ss 5,742 s6 3.450 8o 22,925 43 3.9ss so 20,677 13 S0,123 8o
97.sss 00 7,034 oS 2,1S2 S4 1,S3S 00 16,651 So 2,510 oo !2,364 40 3.73s 00 3,277 20 16,217 55 1,790 S4 4,529 88 15,070 30 5,764 02 S,245 So
9,155 35 6,26S 7S 2,6so oo 4,162 36 3,067 04
1,S96,I99 41

-. --.- -

. . . . . . ------~-------

22

1,ooo local stations (estimated) :
Interstate . . . . . . . . ............. . 20,000 Intrastate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S,ooo

$250,000 00 So,ooo oo

Grand total of reductions in freight rates in Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,226,199 41

Wherever the words "cars" or "car loads" are used herein, they are intended unless specifically limited to cover 30,000 pounds of one kind of freight, whether shipped in one car or in separate lots which aggregate 30,000 pounds.
During 1905, by request of the Commission, I compiled the figures then available to the Commission, and reported the total estimated reduction at $912,500; but the basis recently furnished to this office, viz. : the actu.atl number of tons handled and the proportion of them 1~n the classes in which rates were reduced prove the figwres then published) which represented only the cars handled by the demurrage bureau of the Southeastern Car Service Association, to be l{y far less than the actual amount of the reduction.
It will be noted that the reductions secured by the Railroad Commission in the rates paid by Atlanta alone amounted to about $670,000 during the year 1906. This is materially greater than was estimated by a committee of the Atlanta Chamber of Com.merce itself in a communication published March 21, 1907. Hence it seems a paradox that Atlanta has condemned the Railroad Commission more caustically than has any other city in Georgia for its handling of the freight rate problem; that from Atlanta has come not only the severest condemnation of the Commission as an organized body, but also the most splenetic vituperation of individual members of the Commission.

THE REASON WHY THE PASSENGER RATES WERE NOT REDUCED IN 1905.
The foregoing incontrovertible facts as to the reductions in freight rates secured by the Railroad Commission for the people of Georgia are thus fully shown because they constitute not merely the basework of the reason, but THE REASON ITSELF why the majority of the Commission, did not believe itself justifiable in 1905 in reducing passenger rates in this State.
A recital of the record on Chairman J. Pope Brown's mo-
tion, filed qefore the Commission August 3, 1904, to reduce the passenger rates from three to two cents per mile is proper here.
The motion in question, from which I have made an extract on the first page of the motion I am now making, was not taken
up for a formal hearing until April 20, 1905. Consideration
and final action upon it had been from time to time postponed, as I have recited, pending a settlement of the problems having to do with the interstate and intrastate freight rates. At length, however, the Commission, having secured large reductions in the interstate freight rates to every quarter of Georgia, and feeling assured that it would reach a satisfactory adjustment of the intrastate scale of freight rates, ordered a hearing upon the question of reducing the passenger rates from three cents to two cents per mile.
This hearing was held at the date above named, viz.: -April 20, 1905. The railroad officials appeared in full force and with figures, briefs and oral argument opposed the motion. Protests were received from boards of trade against its passage. Trade and labor organizations sent written petitions against the proposed measure, and also were represented by committees who spoke against it. But the most extraordinary feature of the session was the fact that out of the entire population of Georgia not a single person appeared to support the chairman's motion.
After. maturely weighing the evidence and the equities in

24
this case, therefore, a majority of the Commission, on June 8, 1905, made the following its judgment:

uiN RE MOTION TO REDUCE PASSENGER RATES.

"Upon consideration of this question by the Commi~sion at

its meeting this day, and after having heard evidence sub-

mitted, and arguments made, the board is of the opinion that

no change should be made in the passenger rates at the present

tir1'1Ve.

(Signed)

"H. vV. HILL,

"JOSEPH M. BROWN}

''Commissioners.''

Each of the Commissioners also filed an individual opinion.
Chairman J. Pope Brown not only maintained his proposi-
tion to make two cents per mile the maximum rate for the gen-
eral public over the principal railroads in the State, but also added the following:

"The commercial traveler, who must rjde every day from
fifty to 200 miles, is required to pay 20 cents per mile. These
mileage books ought to be sold at I 0 cents per mile for 2,ooo
miles to any one who applies for them, and should be used by
the purchaser for his family or friends."

But Chairman Brown, in advancing this additional proposi-.
tion, overlooked the fact that the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the case of Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Rail-
way vs. Smith, I73 U. S., forbade that very thing. In that
decision the Supreme Court said :
"The power of the Legislature to enact general laws regarding a company and its affairs does not include the power to compel it to make an exception in favor of some particular dass in a community and to carry the members of that class .at a less sum than it has the right to charge for those who are not fortunate enough to ~e members thereof. This is not a reasonable regulation." And again, "Regulations for maximum rates for present transportation of persons or property bear no resemblance to those which ass1:1me to provide for the purchase of tickets in quantities at a lower than the general

-:--.:!'_-

25

rate. * * * * This is not fixing the maximum rate, nor
is it proper legislation. It is an illegal and unji.tstifiable inter-
ference with the rights of the company."

Commissioner Hill, in his opinion, referred to the fact that
no citizen of Georgia had appeared to second and support the
Chairman's motion; that no other State at that time had fixed
two cents per mile as the passenger rate; that Georgia's popu-
lation per square mile was less than that of other States which
made the rate three cents, and said, "The Commission has just
made large reductions in freight rates," etc., hence that he was
"of the opinion that the motion to reduce the passenger rates
from two cents per mile should be denied."
My opinion filed upon the subject was as follows:
"While my judgment is clear that passenger rates should be made on the same general basis as freight rates are, viz. : that the longer the haul the less per inile, within reasonable limits should be the rate, yet, in view of the fact that within the very recent past, under the pressure of this Commission, the railway companies in Georgia have reduced the interstate rates and afterwards the intrastate rates to an extent which will result in the saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum to the-people of Georgia, and as a still further adjustment--one of commodity rates on articles manufactured in Georgia-is pending, I do not believe that it would be proper at the present time to ma.ke a change in the passenger rates within the State."

There can be no two constructions to the statement that the majority ofthis Board based its refusal to reduce the passenger rates on June 8, 1905; upon the reason that it had, within the then recent past, forced the railroad companies to make such reductions in the freight rates as would save the people of Georgia a very large amount of money per annum. These reductions, when applied to the tonnage moving during the past year, I have shown, really exceed $2,ooo,ooo. The majority of the Commission hence did not believe that it would be wise to attempt at that time to also reduce the passenger rates. Such an attempt on its part would assuredly have been
4 rc

26

resisted in the courts by the railroad companies, with, certa-inly, the possibility that the courts would have held that so great a joint reduction in one year was unreasonable.
It was thought far better, therefore, to make secure what had been gained in the way of lessening the burdens of the people, and to wait until the revenues of the roads, adjusting themselves to the reduced freight rates, would be of such volume as would permit the Commission at a fit time to bring

about a reduction in the passenger rates.

In the opinion of very many such a time is now upon us. A petition, filed by parties representing tens of thousands of the

people of Georgia, has asked that the Commission take this matter under advisement and reduce the passenger rates to

just and equitable figures.

In order that the Board may handle this matter intelligently

and justly, and that it may be in position to place on firm legal

ground its action, whether favorable or unfavorable, upon the petition which calls for it, I have prepared thestatement filed

herewith which gives an analysis of the operations of the

principal roads and of some of the smaller roods in the State during the year 1906, compared generally with their operations during the year 1895, which was the first year in which detailed statements were made by, a number, of these roods. Others have been built since 1895, or have consolidated smaller lines, formerly making incomplete reports, into systems. With the latter two classes the operations of 1906 are compared with those of the first years when detailed statem-ents were made to this Commission.

Inasmuch as the gross earnings of the railroads are made up of receipts from both the pa~senger and freight departments, I have extended the analysis into both departments. It was

proper to do this for two reasons, viz. : First, to compare the

average rate per ton per mile of freight and per passenger per

mile; and, secondly, to see if the variation in freight and pas-

senger rates per mile had borne any relationship to each other

during a period of years.



'27

Of the roads compared it will bt noted that on TEN the rqte
per ton per mile 6n {retight HAS DECREASED, on TWO it has increased, and on eight there were no comparative figures for the years named. The last eight are either weak or new roads.

1'he four roads operated by the Southern Railway Company

are treated .as one in this list, although three of them show

an increase per ton per mile and one a decrease. It is but just

to state that the three showing an increase doubtless do so be-

cause the prosperity now prevailing has enabled the people to

receive from and ship to the East a higher grade of freight than was the case ten years ago, whereas, the other, which in-

dudes the Georgia Pacific, the Chattanooga Division and the

Brunswick Division, handles enormous quantities of pig iron,

iron ores and lumber on, in some cases, very low rates. This explanation, however, shows ~ceptional conditions and does

not void the fact that during the past ten years the ten-

dency of freight rates, whether as the results of competition or of legal requirement, has been downward.

Turning now to the rate per Pa.ssenger .per mile, we find that within the periods of comparison EIGHT 'toads show an INCREASE while FOUR sh.ow a DECREASE, and eight do not furnish statistics for comparison. The last eight are without

exception weak or new lines. In this comparison, as in that of

the freight rates, where two or more roads have been consolidated the figures of the larger road at the first date have been

,compared with those of the system in 19o6.

An examination of the columns in the statement covering passenger traffic shows some striking results. Several of the roads with the same, or practically the same, mileage during both the years of comparison show an increase of upwards of one hundred per cent. in the number of passengers handled and

-in the revenues received from passengers only. With some of

the smaller roads the increase was upwards of two hundred,

or even five hundred, per cent.



The varying' conditions during times of panic and times of

prosperity, the varying bulk of freight business handled and

28
of people traveling would seem to demand that the rates. on these two kinds of traffic should during such periods harve some rela.tionship toward each other. Yet, while this Commission has found it necessary from time to time within the past twenty-six years to vary the freight rates, there has not within that time been any change made by it in passenger' rates.
It may be contended that passenger cars and locomotives cost more now than they formerly did; but exactly the same is true of freight equipment. And I believe it may be safely asserted that the necessity for substituting eighty-pound for sixty-five-pound ste~l rail, and for building stronger bridges, is chargeable to the demand for safety to the freight rather than to that of the passenger service. Few, if any, passenger locomotives in Georgia are as heavy as are some of the freight locomotives. No loaded passenger car is as heavy, for the same length, as is a freight car with fifty tons of freight.
COMPARATIVE COST OF HANDLING PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT.
And in some material respects the actual cost to the railroads of handling passengers is less than in handling freight. A fourteen-year-old girl, weighing one hundred pounds, buys a ticket already printed (the transaction between her and the ticket seller taking less than one minute of time) and loads and unloads herself. While on the train she hands the ticket to the conductor, who punches it. This practically ends the road's dealing with her. Compare her to a ton of freight, packed in, say, five boxes.
This freight is received from the dray, on the depot platform. It is trucked into the warehouse, at least two men being often required to handle it. Later it is trucked into a car. A clerk must check it from the dray, a receipt must be written and given to the shipper for it; it must be checked when trucked into the car; a waybill must be made for it, which must be made a matter of record at the forwarding point and

29
at the point of delivery. At the forwarding point the clas-sification governing this shipment must be determined and the weight multiplied by the rate per hundred pounds or per ton. This calculation must be verified at the point of delivery. And at the point of delivery it must be checked out of the car into the railroad depot, trucked and afterwards checked for delivery to the consignee, etc. Furthermore, if one or more of the boxes Qe overlooked in the loading an "exception sheet" for the shortage is made by the delivering agent which is sent to forwarding agent, who sends the box with a supplementary bill, etc., and when he pays the freight bill, a receipt must be written for consignee. There are other expenses in the auditing department decidedly greater for handling the two thousands pounds of freight than for handling the one hundred-po!.llld girl.
And yet the average road in Georgia charges the hundredpound girl, who loads and unloads herself, more for carrying her a mile than it charges for receiving, billing, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering the ton of freight.
I give some striking examples, merely explaining to t~1e casual reader what the members of the Commission and the railroad officials already know, viz. : that the expressions "2.2I I cents" and "1.584 cents" mean, respectively, "2 cents and 211 one-thousandths of a cent" and "one cent and 584 one-thousandths of a cent;" in other words, 2 cents and slightly more than two-tenths of a cent for the gir:l and one cent and nearly six-tenths of a cent for the ton of freight. This explanation of the first decimals, of course, is the key to that of all those which follow.
The Atlanta & West Point Railroad charges the girl 2.2 I I cents and the ton of freight 1.584 cents; the Atlantic Coast Line charges the girl 2.55I cents and the ton of freight I.I27 cents; the Central of Georgia charges the girl 2.455 cents and the ton of freight I. I I 3 cents ; the Georgia Railroad charges the girl 2.56I cents and the ton of freight 1.056 cents; the Georgia Southern & Florida charges the girl 2.5I3 cents and

30
the ton of freight I. I87 cents; the Macon, Dublin & Savannah charges the girl 2.870 cents and the ton of freight I.725 cents; the Seaboard Air Line charges the girl 2.382 cents and the ton of freight I.oo8 cents; the Southern Railway's Charlotte division charges the girl 2.286 cents and the ton of freight I.o58 cents; the Southern Railway's Chattanooga-Brunswick division charges the girl 2.388 cents and the ton of freight .762 of a cent; the Western and Atlantic charges the girl 2.500 cents and the ton of freight .942 of a cent.
PASSENGER RATES HAVE INCREASED WHILE FREIGHT RATES HAVE DECREASED.
And the difference is greater now than it was years ago. On the fifteen roads giving statistics for comparison the average rate per mile on the hundred-pound girl in 1895, or the other first years shown in the table herewith, was 2.435 cents, in I9o6 it was 2.558 cents; whereas, in the same years the average rate per mile on the ton of freight fell from r.8o5 cents to I .643 cents.
It may properly be added here that, for long distance passengers particularly, there has been one reduction in expense to the railroads which must aggregate a saving of many thousands of dollars annually. This is the mileage they pay to the Pullman Company for the use of sleeping cars. In I895-6 the roads in Georgia generally paid three cents per mile. In I906 some paid two cents per mile and some paid one cent per mile.
And within the same time there has been a marked increase on most of the main lines in their revenue on express matter and on the mails, both of which are carried on their passenger trains. Comparing those whose mileage has _remained the same, or .approximately the same, within the extreme years shown on the general statement herewith, we find the following increases: A. & W. P.R. R., $33,888.I3; Atlantic Coost Line, $65,I83.82; Georgia Railroad, $47,556.04; Seaboard Air Line, $38,478.90; Southern Railway, $292,235.I3; Western

31
& Atlantic Railroad, $51,299. 56.r Of course, the volmne_ of business increased; but manifestly there was compensating prot.

THE PROPER BASIS FOR MAKING PASSENGER RATES.

And, now, after the recital of the foregoing facts of record,

and examination of the tables herewith submitted, both of

which are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case

before the Commission, let me repeat what I said in 1905, viz. :

"My judgment is clear that passenger rates should be made on

the same general basis as freight rates are, viz. : that the longer

the haul the less per mile, within reasonable limits, should be

the rate."

Let me illustrate the basis for this judgment: The standard

freight tariff of Georgia is made on the same general plan as

is that of other States, i. e., that the longer the haul the less

per mile the rate becomes. For instance, on first-class, which

includes dry-goods, clothing, trunks, hats, etc., the following

scale per 100 pounds prevails:

For ten miles, 16 cents; for 100 miles, 45 cents; for 200

miles, 70 cents; for 300 miles, 8o cents, or $240 per car of

30,000 pounds. It is proper to state, however, that as 192

miles is the longest distance between two basing points in the

State, the rates on first-class for 200 and for 300 miles, as

named above, are not used, a maximum of 66 cents per 100

pounds being awlied for 300 miles.

And on class D, which includes grain, the following scale

per 100 pounds prevails :

For ten miles, five cents; for IOO miles, I I cents; for 200

miles, I55 cents; for 300 miles, 19 cents, or $57.00 per car-

load of 30,000 pounds.



Turning now to the passenger rate, we find the following :

For ten miles, 30 cents; for IOO miles, $3.00; for 200 miles,

$6.oo; for 300 miles, $9.00.



32
If the freight rates were made on the same ascending, or multiplying, basis as are the passenger rates, the following would be the rates per roo pounds:
First-class, for ten miles, r6 cents; for roo miles, $r.6o; for 200 miles, $3.20; for 300 miles, $4-8o, or $r,440 per carload of 30,000 pounds.
Class D, for ten miles, 5 cents; for roo miles, so cents; for 200 miles, $r.oo; for 300 miles, $r.so, or $450 per carload of 30,000 pounds. _ Of course, the last figures would stop commerce.
Now, suppose we reverse this, because the proposition formerly before us to make a rate of two cents per mile for all
a distances may be compared to proposition to make on, say
grain, hauled for short distances the same rate per mile as that allowed for long distances. The rate of r9 cents per roo pounds for, 300 miles figures slightly more than six one-hundredths of a cent per mile; a decimal over six mills for ten miles; a decimal over six cents for roo miles, etc. Applying these rates to a car loaded with 30,000 pounds of corn, we find that the railroads would receive for hauling the car one mile r8 cents; for ten miles, $r.83; for roo miles, $r8.33, and for 300 miles, the present rate, $57.00.
Needless to say, the railroad companies could no more live if forced to haul ,30,000 pounds ten miles for $r.83 than could the shipper if the latter had to pay $450 as the freight rate for three hundred miles.
Why, then, is it not relatively as great a burden for a man who travels to pay three cents per mile indiscriminately for ro miles and for 300 miles as it would be ~or him to have to pay on his freight shipments exactly the same rate per mile for 300 miles as he pays for ro miles. The money goes out of the same pocket, the only difference being that in the one case it is paid for hauling his property, in the other for hauling himself.
But let us pursue this analysis a little :further, for in it is found the demonstration of the fallacy, or, shall I say, the in-

33
justice ?-certainly the lack of equity-upon which the pas-
senger, rate is at present built. At the public hearing of this case, April 24th, ult., a railroad
vice-president widely known for intelligence, integrity and experience in traffic matters, was asked if it would not be just and reasonable to make passenger rates on the same basis as freight rates are made, viz. : the longer the distance the less per mile the rate. His answer was:- "Academically, yes; but it has never been tried." He then added that, if passenger rates were made on that plan there ought to be a minimum of from twenty-five to fifty cents allowed to cover initial and terminal costs; but his view was that this was a proposition to make effective an untried theory. In such cases he thought it best to adhere to old rules and not attempt something new.
Such an argument, if enforced, would have prevented the introduction and use of the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone, etc. It would have held on to the spinning wheel and hand-loom, instead of making use of high-class cotton factory machinery.
To combat his opinion, as above expressed, I take again the illustration of the hundred-pound girl and the ton of freight; or, rather, I substitute for the girl an average passenger, weighing 125 pounds; as comparedwith 125 pounds of freight. Let us begin with the shortest group, the five-mile group, the one paying the highest rate per mile, of the Railroad Commission's Standard Freight Tariff. This includes twenty-two classes. The average rate in all these classes for five miles is 5.8 cents per 100 pounds, or 7.25 cents for 125 pounds. Hence, dividing this by five, we have 1.45 cents, or less than one and one-half cents as the rate on 125 pounds of freight for one mile, as compared with three cents, the rate on the passenger for one mile.
For ten miles, the average rate on 125 pounds of freight is 10 cents, and on the passenger 30 cents. Hence, the freight rate has increased less than 9 cents and the passeJ:?.ger rate 27 cents.
For one hundred miles the average rate on 125 pounds of

3-l

freight is 22.5 cents, and on the passenger $3.00. Hence, the

freight rate has increased barely over 2 I cents and the pas-

senger rate $2.97.

For three hundred miles the average rate on I25 pounds of

freight is 4r.3 cents, and on the passenger $9:00. Hence, the

freight rate has increased almost 40 cents and the passenger

_rate $8.97. Or, if we illustrate by two cities, the average rate,

as agreed upon, between Savannah and Atlanta (almost 276

miles qy the short line) on I2 5 pounds of freight is 3 r.45

cents and on the passenger $8.37. Hence, the freight rate has

increased 30 cents and the passenger rate $8.34.

This disproportion between the increase in the freight and the passenger rates will, to a great degree, ~ontinue to exist

when compared to any "fiat" passenger rate which might be

named.

But, it will be said, the passenger cars are more costly than

the freight cars, and the general expense of conducting pas-

senger traffic is greater per passenger than per ton of freight.

The comparative figures I have given on this point leave the

question at least open to debate,

Concerning the passenger cars, or coaches, let me say that

if they cost relatively more than do the freight cars they earn

more. It can doubtless be asserted that those now in use on

the main lines did not average a cost of $8,ooo each, and that

those on the smaller roads did not average a cost of more than

$7,000 each. Let us look at their earnings, in 1906, on- some

that we may style sample roads:

.,.,;

ROADS.

zOo.<-!"lll

. ., ....

,_ QJ aS
"== .. bO"
a~~ <~e

~ ;.~
wbO...i.l. =>.~'
"'3"o oo"ql3cu
~ ~u

-g;.a~~2
~~a>
"'"'

Atlanta & West Point........................ 18 422,571 $ 366,852-49 23,476 $ 20,380 69

Central of Georgia.......................................................................................................... ..

Georgia................................................ 42 814,950 724,454 41 19,403 17,248 91

Western & Atlantic............................ 21 395,602 405,909 19 18,838 19,329 01

Macon, Dublin & Savannah .. .. .. .... .. .. . 6

96,276

64,593 79 16,046 10,765 63

Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic........ 30 540,556 278,866 06 18,018

9,295 53

Wr:ghtsville & Tennille...................... 9 142,708

66,569 24 15,856

7,396 58

Georgia Northern................................ 7

48,876 73

6,982 39

Albany & Northern....................

5

70,369

34,716 28 . 14,074

6,943 25

The above figures indicate that the coaches on the main

35
lines earn annually upwards of 200 per cent. each, and on the secondary and smaller lines about, or more than, IOO per cent. each. .
The passenger coach of the average road runs practically every day.
Let us now turn to the running, hence the earning, record of the freight car. It may be considered a truism that the average distance per clay made by a freight car is less than thirtythree miles. The following reports of the "average miles per cby made by freight cars _during 1906 over the roads named" certainly sustain this estimate, vrz. : Atlanta & West Point, 22.6 miles; Southern Railway, 19.5 miles; Atlantic Coast Line, 2 I miles; Georgia Railroad, 22.4 miles; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, 35 miles. The greater portion of its time a freight car is on the sidetracks, being loaded or unloaded, or is in the yards, standing, or in some of the minor movements incident to transportation. The average car, counting its varying through and way service, does not carry twenty tons per load. It has already been shown that the earnings per ton per mile are materially less than per passenger per mile. It is clear, therefore, that the freight car's earnings are less, in proportion to its cost and standing valuation, than are those of the passenger car.
Returning now to the application before us for a reduction in the passenger rate and to the question as to whether a flat rate per mile or a graded rate should be ordered, I will express these views :
A FLAT RATE OF TWO CENTS PER MILE WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE AND JUST.
The conditions of the country and of the railroads are such as demand and justify a reduction of the passenger rates over many of the railroads. I will be frank, however, in the statement that I do not believe, and have never believed, that a reduction from three to two cents per mile covering all distances,

36

considering the number per square mile of her population,

would qe equitable in Georgia, or could be sustained in the

courts. The scale of rates I have already given justify me in

the above declaration.



THE GRADED (OR ZONE) RATE WOULD BE FAIR.
But I do believe, and, as the record proves, have for many years believed, that a graded passenger rate, beginning with two and <! half cents P-er mile within a zone not exceeding fifty miles, on some roads, and ending with two cents per mile for long distances, would be equitable and would be upheld.
Such a reduction, while bringing a gratifying measure of relief to the people, would not bear so heavily on the railroads as would appear on the surface, because, taking twelve of the leading railroads in the State, we find that the average haul of a passenger is only about thirty-eight miles. Hence, vastly the greater portion of their passengers would be handled on the highest rate per mile allowed. True, it may be asserted that the long distances are counted with the short ones to get the average, whether under the higher or lower rate; but when we throw the four hundred, three hundred, two hundred, one hundred-mile hauls with the.five and fifteen-mile hauls and the average is thirty-eight miles, it is manifest that an immense majority of the people ride very short distances. Furthermore, the experience on the Western & Atlantic Railroad, when it worked a graded rate, beginning with two and a half cents per mile for the first fifty miles in 1888, 1889 and 1890, was that with the reduction of the rate there was a great increase in the number of tickets sold, and that the increase was greatest in distances under fifty miles. On that railroad, during the almost three years in which it worked the graded rate, while its through passenger business was falling off heavily because of combinations which withdrew through sleeping car lines from it, its local passenger traffic and revenue increased

37

-:--.,.-
1n such volume as held its gross passenger earnings pr&ctically

intact.

The first lease of the above road expiring, the State of Geor-

gia leased it to the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Rail-

way Company, the new lease beginning December 27, 1890.

The earnings of the passenger department of the Western &

Atlantic Railroad, under the graded passenger rate, during

the twelve months of the year 1890 exceeded $300,000. With-

in the first quarter of the year 1891, upon application of Presi-
dent J. W. Thomas, of the new leasing company, this Com-



mission allowed the three cents per mile passenger rate to be

restored. A copy of this application, with the reasons for the

same, was read at the hearing on this case April 23d, ult.

A perusal of the application makes very clear the fact that

President Thqmas was not aware that all the loss in the num-

ber of passengers and in revenue was in through business, the

ticket sales at local offices showing a large increase in the num-

ber of passengers and an increase in revenue. But the follow-

ing extract from a letter written to this Commission by Presi-

dent Thomas, made public October, 6, 1899, would seem to

have some bearing upon the question as to whether the raising

of the rate to three cents per mile increased the passenger

revenue of the Western & Atlantic Railroad, viz. :

"I also beg leave to advise that the number of trains running to and from Atlanta over the Western & Atlantic Railroad, four each way per day, has not been increased for years; and that the passenger revenue of the Western & Atlantic Railroad has not increased, the average for ten years from 188o to 1889, inclusive, being $3o6,358.91 per annum, and for the past eight and a half years only $288,489.36 per annum."

President Thomas' remarks as to the number of trains nmning to and from Atlanta over the Western & Atlantic Railroad, and his figures showing the falling off in the gross passenger earnings of that road are of surpassing interest in their bearing upon two points, viz. : first, the number of trains the two companies operating the road felt justified in running under the graded passenger rate, and under the higher, or three

38
cents per mile passenger rate; and, secondly, the comparative revenue on the gross number of passengers traveling under the lower or graded rate versus that on the gross number traveljug under the rate of three cents per mile.
in As to the first point, 1890, when the lower or graded rate
prevailed, the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company ran to and from Atlanta six passenger trains-or, counting the two trips of the Marietta accommodation, seven-per day. Of these the Rome Express, which the western & Atlantic handled between Atlanta and Kingston, earned, on the mileage betwe~n, those points, upwards of $27,000 during the year, and the Marietta accommodation, running two trips each way daily, between Atlanta and Marietta, earned upwards of $I8,ooo during the same period.
After the rate was raised to three cents per mile the Rome Express was taken off and the noonday trip of the Marietta Accommodation was eliminated. The reason given by the management in each case was that the revenues received did not justify the running of the trains. The logic, therefore, as to the withdrawal of these trains and the reduction in the gross passenger revenue of the road seems to be that the real cause of the first and, at least a partial cause of the second, was the raising of the rate.
As emphas"izing the seeming incongruity in the falling off of revenues after the raise in the rate it ma:y be stated that the population of the counties traversed by the \Vestern & Atlantic Railroad was, in 1899, at least 20 per cent. greater than in 1889.
A parallel to t'he above-mentioned record of the W est~rn &' Atlantic Railroad was shown at the hearing of the case now before us by the. Wrightsville & Tennille R. R.., almost all of whose business is intrastate and local, viz. : For eight months ending in 1906, 96,846 passengers were transported at an average rate per passenger per mile of 2.64 cents. For the corresponding period ending in 1907, the average rate per passenger per mile increased to 2.78 cents, and the total number of passengers fell to 94,840.
\

THE ZONE SYSTEM IN HUNGARY AND RUSSIA. ASTONISHING RESULTS.
The question as to whether the graded passenger rate will or will not pay was answered'affirmatively, as I have foreshadowed, in the experience of the Western & Atlantic Railroad, in Georgia, in the years 1888, 1889 and 1890. But there is further ovenvhelming proof in the working of what is termed the "zone system" in Hungary and in Russia. The "zone system" is the graded rate pure and simple--"the per cent. of reduction growing smaller as you go nearer to the startingpoint." From the translation of a document issued by the Hung~rian government in the year 1890, and loaned to this office by the Ir;terstate Commerce Commission in regard to the then new system, and from a supplementary note by the translator, we find that up to March 31, 1890; i. e., for the first eight months of the experiment-
"The increase in passenger traffic was 169 per cent. over the traffic in the corresponding eight months under the old system, having risen to 7,770,876 as compared with 2,891,332. The result is still more remarkable with regard to traffic between neighboring stations. Whereas, under the old tariff only 255,000 persons used the railway for such purpose, their number during the above eight months rose to 4,367,586."
RESULT OF THE ZONE RATE IN GEORGIA IN 1888.
The parallel to the above figures was in a measure shown on the \Vestern & Atlantic Railroad (the percentage of reduction on which, however, was not so great as that made in Hungary on second and third class tickets) in the ticket sales at six stations, not one of which had fifty inhabitants, the most of the tickets reading to nearby stations. At these stations in March-June, inclusive, 1887, the total number of tickets sold was 653. These were at the three-cent rate. During the same four months in 1888, under the reduced and graded rate, the

----------------

40

total number of tickets sold at these stations was 2, I 33 - Of course, at each period named a large percentage of the travel must have represented farmers who lived near these little stations.
-Taking next, six station:s with populations ranging from 75 to 200, respectively, in March-June, inclusive, I887, the total number of tickets sold a~ the three-cent rate was 2,690. During the same months, in I888, under the reduced and graded
rate, the total number of tickets sold was 5,788.
From a statement published in July, I888, by the General Passenger Agent of the Western & Atlantic Railroad, we note:
"From stations with population ranging from 700 down to 350, the increase in ticket sales was as follows: Acworth, 4I per cent. ; Kingston, 56 per cent. ; Ringgold, 5I per cent. ; Adairsville, 73 per cent.; and Calhoun, I 12 per cent.
"From Cartersville, Dalton and Marietta, which have from 2,750 to 3,500 population, respectively, the increase in ticket sales amounted to an average of over 40 per cent."

Supplementing the above figures, the same authority, in

September, I888, made the following statement as to the gain

caused by the lower rate:





"The ticket sales at our offices during this July and August aggregate 4I per cent. increase over the number of tickets sold during the same two months of last year."

It will be noted that on the Western & Atlantic Railroad the reduction of the rate was less than I 7 per cent. for distances of fifty miles and less, and about 30 per cent. for distance exceeding one hundred miles. The theoretical average reduction, therefore, was about 23 per cent. But, inasmuch as vastly the greater portion of the travel was for distances less than fifty miles, the average actual reduction must have_ been no more than 20 per cent.
Judging, therefore, that the Georgian of I906 and succeeding years will, under like conditions, act as did the Georgian in 1888-'90; and that the East Georgian, the South Georgian

41
and the Middle Georgian will show the same disposition as did the Northwest Georgian, we may confidently assert that the ap-. plication of the reduced, graded passenger rate will result in so great an increase in the aggregate number of passengers carried as will more than counterbalance the reduction per ticket. 'And the actual reduction we may estimate to be now, as in 1888-'90, about 20 per cent. per ticket.
Leaving out of consideration for a moment the questjon as to whether or not the reduction in the rate will result in a great increase in the number of people traveling, and constdermg that in the famous "Nebraska case," so often adduced by the railroad companies, the Supreme Court of the United States declared as confiscatory and annulled a reduction of 290 per cent. ordered in the revenues of the railroads in Nebraska, let us see how great a percentage of the total revenues of th~
railroads in Georgia a reduction of 20 per cent. in their pas
senger revlfflue; would represent. I take the eight principal railroads at interest.
Discarding minute decimals, the following figures show the percentage of reduction in each road's total revenues, viz.: Atlantic Coast Line, 4. 7; Atlanta & \Vest Point, 7. 2 ; Central of Georgia, 4. 6; Georgia, 5 . 1 ; Georgia Southern & Florida, G. 2 ; Seaboard Air Line, 4. 6; Southern, 5 . 5 ; Western & At1antic, 3. 2.
The average reduction for the eight roads is almost exactly 5 per cent. This, for the aggregate or the average for each road. is very far below the percentage of reduction (290 pet' rent.) annulled in Nebraska by the Supreme Court. And no mtelligent railroad man can contend that it would be all loss, in other words, that there would be no increase in travel with compensating revenue, as the result of the reduction in the pas~enger rate.
It is proper to state just here that. during the year 1888 the increase in the number of tickets sold at the graded rate at 'Nestern & Atlantic stations was so great as to show a constant' increase in local revenue over that when the three-cent rate pre-

42
. vailed in 1887; and that in 1889 there was ail increase over 1888, and in 1890, an increase over 1889 in the local ticket sales on this railroad. .
But, ret ning to the i!Iustration in Hungary, the increase in short distance travel was not the only marked featJlre of the application_ of the "zone system" of passenger fares. "Thi~t system," it is stated, "introduced a great reduction in the average fare and an enormous reduction in the long-distance fare." In fact, the Hungarian government officia!Iy states that the first consideration in the adoption of the zone system was "the removal of the disadvantages attending long-distance travel, because of its high cost." Hence the reduction for greatest distance is 82 per cent.
THE ZONE RATE MOST EQUITABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND TO THE RAILROADS.
Thus, the very basic idea of the "zone system" in Hungary was the san~e as was that of the "graded rate" on the vVestern & Atlantic Railroad in 1888, viz.: the enabling of people of modest means" to travel long distances. There must be allowed, even for short distances, a rate per mile large enough to cover the expense and a!Iow the railroad company "a reasonable profit." It is undoubtedly true that it costs less per mile to haul a passenger a long' distance than to haul him a short distance. The zone system lets him ride cheaper-per mile over distances where the cost per mile to the road is less; whereas, the "flat" rate makes him p'ay as high a rate per mile where the cost is little per mile, as he pays where the cost is much per mile.
The objection that the zone system makes the short-distance passenger pay more per mile tha:n does the long-distance passenger who probably sits by his side is met by the fact that the short-distance passenger to-day may ride, or want to ride, a long distance to-morrow. And the zone system lets many take the long-distance trip who would not be able to afford that trip

43
on the "flat" rate per mile. Under the zone system many a farmer would be .able to go from Sottth Georgia to North Georgia who, under the "flat" rate is confined to short trips in the region of his home. Hence, to no class would the zone system be so great a help as to the farmers.
The translator of the publication from which I have quoted, viz.: Professor Edmund J. James, of the University of Pennsylvania, makes the following remarks:
"Hungary was in some respects the most unfavorable country in Western Europe for such ari. experiment. It has relatively a small population, scattered over a large territory, poor, ignorant, conservative, the kind of a population not likely to respond quickly to such a thing as a reduction in lorig-distance railroad fares. The. success of the experiment has fixed
the attention of railroad managers on the continent. * * *
The example of Hungary is of special value to us, because its eco~omic conditions are in many respects similar to our own."
The Empire of Russia, the most thinly settled country in Europe, it can be stated, has followed the example of Hungary in the adoption of the "zone system" of passenger rates, with like gratifying results. This system, as has been shown, was inaugurated in Hungary in 1889. The fact that this graded rate, with low prices for tickets, is the successor to the higher and uniform rate per mile in the two countries in Europe which have a comparatively small population per mile, would seem to have a bearing on upsetting the theory in this country that low passenger rates can not be afforded except in thickly populated sections. The theory in question was also upset by the experience on the \Vestern & Atlantic Railroad in working the reduced ana graded rate. Between Kingston and Dalton, the most'thinly settled portion of its line, and the portion being traversed by the fewest passenger trains, the percentage of increase in the numqer of passengers and of revenue was greater than in the other portions of its line.

44
'THE ZONE SYSTEM ORIGINATED IN GEORGIA, AND ON GEORGIA'S STATE RAILROAD.
It may be asserted, I hope without 4ld taste, that "the ex-
:ample of Hungary" was almost assuredly copied in principle Jrom "the example" set by the Western & Atlantic Railroad of Georgia. It is a matter of record that at the annual meeting of the lessees of that r~ilroad, in February, I888, I, at that time, general passenger agent of the company, recommended that the passenger rates be reduced, and that for the uniform rate of three cents per mile there be substituted a :graded rate, 'viz.: 20 cents per mile for the first fifty miles, 2 ;4 cents per mile for distances over fifty and not exceeding
one hundred miles, and 2 78 cents per mile for distances ex-
ceeding one hundred miles. The entire length of the road, 'it is well known, is I38 miles.
The stockholders approved the suggestion, and ordered that the foregoing scale of rates be made effective March I, I 888.
There was widespread comment in the ,American press con-cerning the new rates.
In the summer of that year a letter was received by the Assistant General Passenger Agent, from Vienna, Austria, under cover of an official envelope, asking for a copy of the graded passenger tariff of the Western & Atlantic Railroad. 'The request was, of course, complied with. On August I, I889, the Hungarian Government put into effect a graded :system of passenger fares, which it styled the "zone system." The total distance across the country was divided- into fourteen zones. The general plan adopted in Hungary was the same as that on the Western & Atlantic Railroad, viz. : the longer the distance the less per mile the rate.
But in Hungary, to accommodate the social conditions there prevailing, passenger rates were divided into three classes on both "ordinary trains" aJ;J.d "rapid trains." On the "rapid trains" the rates averaged nearly twenty per cent. higher than on the "ordinary trains". These rates make no allowance for

45
baggage, none being carried free. In this country, however,. distinctions between classes are not made, and it is customary to allow a limited amount of baggage to be .carried without charge for the purchasers of tickets. 'And just here let me say: that at the hearing of this case, April 23d-24th ult., referencewas made to the inferior character of the second and third class coaches on European trains. I do not doubt that this is true; but, as we have no account of any improvement there in this respect, the only reason we have left for the vast increase~ in the passenger traffic is the reduction of the rate.
But, before closing the adduction of proof that the moderateand judicious reduction of rates does not mean confiscation of railroad property, but, on the contrary, brings an increase not only in the volume of traffic but also in the gross r~venues of the railroads, while coordinately enabling the patrons of therailroads to develop the resources of the State, let me make, the following statement and comparison :
As I have already shown, in I905, through the instrumentality of the Railroad Commission of Georgia, the interstate and intrastate freight rates in Georgia were reduced, the railroad companies protesting that the reduction would inflict serious, and unnecessary loss upon them.
The reverse to their protest seems proven; a paradox seerris before us when their own sworn statements as to their annual earnings make clear three facts, viz. : first, that their tonnage was largely increased; secondly, that, with the exception of the Atlantic Coast Line (whose general average rate per ton was pulled down by an. enormous increase in its tonnage of phosphate rock, lumber, naval stores, brick, sand and t)1e like), their freight revenue was largely increased; and, thirdly, that on half of ~the eight roads most interested in the reduction, their arvera:ge rate per ton per mrile waiS absolutely grea.ter under the reduced mtes than u.nder the h~~gher rates. On one of the remaining roads (the Central of Georgia) the average . rate per ton per mile was exactly the same (viz. : r. I I 3) under the former and the reduced rates; on another (th~

46

Georgia Southern & Florida) the average rate per ton per mile (viz.: 1.187) under the reduced rate was practically the same as that (viz. : I. 189) under the former rate. The average on the eight roads, under the former rates was 1.070, whereas, under the reduced rates it arose to 1.11 6. How can this be explained? Possibly, on the theory that tl1e greater the development the richer per capita the people become and the more high-class goods they are able to buy. But let the statement show its full details. I take for comparison 1904, the last full year under the old rates, and 1906, the first full year under the reduced rates.

ROADS.

I I Fr1e9i0g4ht

NT 0 0 f !TRoanteppeerrl

1 Revenue.

ons. Mi'e,

1906 Freight
Revenue.

A. & W. P .................. $ 468,132 64

A .. C. L...... .. ............... 3,440,999 13

C. of G....................... l 4,817,866 84

I Ga..............................: 1,701,637 67

G.-;. & F .............

784,229 49

S. A. L ....................... 11.998,879 81

Southern .... ......... ...... 2,709 952 63

W. & A..... ...... ... ........ 900,567 55

I

522,180 1,306

2,287,565 1.349

3,094,346 1,113

1,318,879 934

I 770,076 1,189
1. 859.237 1. 035

3,236, 788 638,526

I

748 884

$ 553,607 09 3,191,960 63 6,078,450 67 1,960,071 94 855,022 54 2,509, 718 85 3,285, 715 14
2,063,227 15

556,3421 2,608,516 3,741,013 1,615,052
821,879 2,251,676 3,841,005 1,356,046

1,584 1,127 1,113 1,056 1,187
1,008 912
942

The reductions to which I hnve referred above were mainly those to and from the cities and other basing points, and were intended, in part, to secute to jobbers, manufacturers and other business men at Georgia shipping points the power to compete on fair terms with the business man of neighboring States in common territory.
This was an equity which was certainly due the jobbers and manufacturers of Georgia, and the Railroad Commission of Georgia was as certainly resolved to secure it for them if legally possible. But we may believe that that has, in great measure, been accomplished when we see Atlanta jobbers shipping dry goods and notions into the Mississippi Valley, Atlanta wholesale shoe-houses shipping shoes to Texas and to Canada, Atlanta wagon factories shipping wagons to Louisiana and North Carolina, Atlanta furniture factories shipping furniture to Pennsylvania and California, and an Atlanta stove factory making a profit of several times twenty per cent.

47
per annum under the present reduced rates, whereas its president told members of this Commission two years ago that unless the rates were reduced he would have to move his plant to Birmingham, Alabama, so as to keep it alive.
THERE- IS A STOPPING PLACE BETW.EEN REASONABLE PROFIT AND CONFISCATION.
Of course there is a stopping place, and it may be that we are approaching that stopping place when to reductions above referred to, we add those ordered by this Commission in the percentages above the standard freight rates charged by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, the Central of Georgia Railway, the Southern Railway, the Seaboard Air Line Railway, the Georgia Southern & Florida Railway and the Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railroad; and in the reductions ordered by this Commission from Georgia cities to Boston, Ga., and Moultrie, Ga., to prevent unjust discrimination againsf those points, which resulted in a reduction from interstate points to all local points on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad west of Waycross. And, for startling reasons which I shall give later, it would appear 1'mpera1tive that. a halt should be called in the ma1tter of further reductions IN FREIGHT RATES UNTIL THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE ARE AL-
LOWED TO SHARE THEM.
Let me remark, however, that the percentages to which I have referred were allowed to all the roads' named save the last (a new line) at a period when a disastrous panic spread its blight over the State. It is right, therefore, that in this period of high prosperity those percentages above the standard tariff be reduced.
It is right, also, because the symmetry of the rate structure demands it. As I have already shown, the interstate rates were reduced in February, I905. These rates are the basis of Georgia's interstate commerce. They enable the Georgian to trade with the New Englander, the New Yorker, the

48
Ohioan, the Missourian, the Texan, etc. The interstate rates were proven to be higher to Georgia points than to points in States on either side of her. It was proper, therefore, that this. discrimination against Georgia should be corrected, as, in a measure, it was.
The rates between the cities in Georgia were also readjusted and reduced in May, 1905. These rates are the medium whereby the Georgia manufacturer and jobber trades with the Georgian in all quarters of the State.
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION HAS PROTECTED EQUITIES.
The figures I have adduced prove that the railroad companies had reduced this Commission's rates between certain cities in this State in such manner as wrought gross discrimination against other cities. It was imperative, therefore, that this discrimination be brought to an end. It was then in order to reduce somewhat the percentages above the standard tariff on such lines as fixed an unjust proportion of the burdens of transportation immediately upon the farmer and way-station resident; for we must not forget that in the latter two are found about ninety per cent. of the population of Georgia; and, as they furnish the greater portion of the patronage received in Georgia by the railroads, they are entitled to this reduction which in great _measure directly concerns them. With these latter reductions accomplished, we have removed the gross disproportion which has existed on some lines between the rates between common points and the rates to strictly local stations, and have arrived closely at the basis which is substantially equitable to the people and the railro~ds alike; for the country man already shares with the city man, so far as the rate structure is concerned, a part of the reductions in the interstate rates. In other words, when the rates on bacon were reduced two cents per 100 pounds from Chicago to Atlanta the same reduction at once became effective from Chicago to Jonesboro, Fairburn, Norcross, etc.

49
As soon as these reductions in the percentages which-the Railroad Commission has ordered (some of which, on prayer of the railroad companies are temporarily enjoined in the courts) become effective, they will give to the farmers and other patrons at every station of the roads named reduced rates which, in the aggregate, will approximate, if they do not. exceed, $IOo,ooo annually.

PASSENGER RATES SHOULD BE REDUCED.

But, granting that we may be approaching at least a tem-

porary stopping place in the general reduction of freight rates,

we cam not entertain the prop,osition that there shall never be

a reduction 1~n the passenger rates. There should be some sym-

metry in the joint freight and passenger rate structure. The

latter should not be as cast-iron while the former is as india-

rubber. As I have already shown, the general tendenty of

freight raies, whether as the result of competition or of legal

requirement, has been downwarrd, whereas P'assenger rates J:azf

actually averaged an increaiSe per passenger per mile. And

yet let us look at the increaiSe in f,he number of passengers

hauled in Georgia by some of the roads with absolutely or

approximately the same mileage in the extreme years of com-

parison, viz. :

Albany & Northern (in 1896), 10,595; (in 1906), 70,369.

Atlanta & West Point (in 1895), 220,425; (in 1906), 422,571.

Atlantic Coast Line (in 1897), 464,368; (m 1906), 1,127,274.

Georgia

(in.1895), 321,986; (in 1906), 814,950.

Macon & Birmingham (in 1897), 22,390 ; (in 1906), 76,038.

Seaboard -Air Line (in 1901), 491,838 ; (in 1906), 760,881.

Southern Lines - (in 1896), 974,895; (in 1906), 1,568,256.

Tal ulah Falls

(in 1895), 15,479 ; (in 1906), 107,725.

The fiscal year, ending June 3oth, is in each case counted. The above columns show that the number of passengers, on the roads named, increased from 2,521,976 to 4,948,064. In the same years their freight business increased from 6,176,876 tons to 12,355,240 tons, yet, although,their freight and passenger business increased in practically the same ratio,. the average rate per ton per mile on freight decreased while the average rate per passenger per mile increased.

50
THE REDUCTION IN FREIGHT RATES ABSORBED BY MANUFACTURERS AND JOBBERS.
And there is another feature of overwhelming (it should be of controlling) importance for consideration in the comparison of the results of reductions in freight and passenger rates respectively, viz. : The reductions in freight rates arre, in the main, absorbed by the jobbers, or the owners of marn.ufacturing plants. THE FARMER, OR OTHER CONSUMER, OF MANY ARTICLES oF FREIGHT GETS NO PART OF THE REDUCTION.
Let us note some examples: In I905, as I have shown, there were, in the aggregate, enormous reductions in interstate and intrastate rates to and from Atlanta and other Georgia cities. The amount of reduction from New York and Boston to Atlanta, for instance, was 9 cents pef Ioo pounds, or $27.00 per car load of 30,000 pounds, on hats, men's clothing, blankets, dry-goods and the like. Yet, not one of the Georgia farmers whlo ha'!Ve filed. the petition now urnder considemtion for the reduction of passenger rates has be'en able to buy a ha,t, or a su# of clothes for himself or his sons; or a blarnket; or a yard of muslin, or ginghams or calico 'for his wife or his darutglvters, one cent chleap'er becarwse of th'e REDUCTION o~ $27.00 PER CAR LOAD IN THE FREIGHT RATES on these items. Nay, even worse, although th.e frevght rates were reduced almost eight per cent. on clothing, THE PRICE OF CLOTHING, as I shall show later, IS ACTUALLY SEVEN PER CENT. HIGH:ER NOW THAN IN I905. And amazing to relate! although the freight
rate on boots and shoes was reduced twenty-nine cents per one hundred pounds, or in other words, $87.00_ PER CAR
LOAD of JO,ooo pownds, yet there is not a farmer 7pho can
bu:y a palir of boots or shoes as chleaply n1ow as in Jarnuary,
I905. In fact th:e price of shoes is forty per cent. higher now than in Januatry, I905.
And H-ot a farmer mn buy a plow, or am, lliX', or a set of har-

51

ness cheaper, or brooms, or bedsteads o-r chairs. In fact, run

the whole gamrut of artcles of necessity or articles of ornament

and luxwry one bu,ys a:t the stores, or a1t the factory door, and

tell me how ma.ny of them a farrmer can buy for as low a price

{.

now CAS he could before THE :FREIGHT RATES ON PRACTICALLY

ALL OF' THEM WERE REDUCED TWO YEARS AGO

.TWO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCTION AND THE FARMERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SHARE ONE CENT OF IT!

And yet THE VOTES OF' THE :FARMERS were the 111JQin votes appealed to to stamp the seOll of condemnation upon the Rail-

road Commission of Georgia whioh ha1d forced thas enormous reductt~on of rates IN ITS ATTEMPT TO UGHTEN THEIR BURDENS.

And, coming into the city, I will add that, although the

rate on flour was reduced at least $6.oo per car load of 30,000 pounds, not a carpenter or other consumer in Atlanta has been

ahle to buy a loaf of bread one cent cheaper because of, or since, the reduction in the freight rate. And as it has been in

Atlanta so, no doubt, it is in the other centers.

REDUCTION IN TH.E STOVE RATES.
Again, at the same time, a reduction was made in the rates on pig irron and sand, to Atlanta for ~he benefit of the stove factories. The stove factories a~~o got the benefit of the reduced rates on stoves effective May 20, 1905, between Atlanta and al/l Georgia cities and other basin~ points. The following are some samples of the reductions, per car load of 20,000 pour:ds, in the freight rates on stoves:
From Atlanta to Columbus, $I8;<?0; to Athens, $Io.oo; to Augusta, Macon, Albany, Hawkinsville, Americus, Dublin, Dawson and Milledgeville, $4.00 each.
And the following are some samples of the reductions per IOO pounds in the freight rates on stoves in less than car load quantities :

52
From Atlanta to Thomasville, Quitman, Valdosta, Fitzgerald and Tifton, nine cents each; to Athens, five cents; to Augusta, Albany, Macon, Hawkinsville, Americus, Milledgeville, Dublin and Dawson, four cents each, and to Columbus fourrteen cents. In other words, on a shipment of ten thousand pounds of stoves from Atlarnta to Thomasville there was a redu.ction in the frdght rate of $9.00, and on a like shipment from Atlanta to Colu1mbus there was a reducton of $14.00.
It should be held t~n mind tha1t when these reducton.s in the rates on stoves were ma1de they carried with them the sa:me reduction to every local sta:tt1on whose rates based on the cities nearrest to them. HENCE NEARLY EVERY !"ARMER IN GEORGIA
WHO BOUGHT A STOVE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE BENEFIT
OF THESE REDUCED RATES.
The particular reason why the Railroad Commission took the above-mentioned and subsequent steps for bringing about a reduction in the freight rates, in Georgia, on stoves, was because, if there be anything which has become an object of every day---.three times a day-necessity in practically every household in Georgia, it is the stove. Hence, more than any other article in the classification, the Railroad Commission and its committee who handled the rate problem with the railroad officials stressed its will that there must be reductions on stove materials shipped to the factories and on the stoves when completed and put upon the market.
I will show, a little later, !hat the stove trust, by raising th_e prices, rendered of no avail to the farmer, the carpenter, the mechanicJhose reductions in the freight rates.
The above are, in a double sense, homely illustrations; but is it not time that they were being fearlessly used that the farmers and other laboring people of Georgia may be able to demand that they, too, shall be allowed to share in the reduc- tion made in the freight rates, or in the event of failure therein to be in position to ask some questions of weighty import? And that they are in the mood to ask these questions even now was proven by the fact that at the hearing of this case

53
April 23d ult., a committee of the labpr union stated that, even with the higher wages now received, less money can be saved than under lower wages, because the prices of almost all things they buy at the stores are higher than ever before.
THE CROWNING PROOF.
The proof of the truth of the above statement is found in
Bulletin 69 of the Bureau of Labor, printed at the United
States Government printing office, Washington, March, 1907. From it I make the following extracts :
"In the present report prices are given for 258 representative articles.
"The present investigation shows that wholesale prices, considering the 258 commodities as a whole, reached a higher level in 1906 than at any other time during the seventeen-year period ( 1890 to 1906) covered. The arvera1ge for the yearr I906 'WaLS' 5.6 p'Cr Cent. hri<gher tharn for I905; 36.5 per cent. higher than that for 1897, the year of lowest prices during the seventeen-year period; and 22.4 per cent. higher than the average for the ten years from 1890 to 1899. Prt'<:e'S reached therr highe'St pot'rnt durr_t'ng the serven,teen...year period t~n Decem1ber> I906, th:e arveraif{e for that month being 4.I per cent. higher tharn the arverGJge for th:e yeGJr I906, arnd 6.3 per cent. Mgher than the weraif{e for December, I905.
"An _examination of the prices of the various articles covered by the investigation shows that notwithstanding this large average increase, the increase in price did riot extend to all commodities. Of the 258 articles for which wholesale prices were obtained thirty showed no change in average price for the year and fifty showed a decrease in price as compared with 1905, while 178 showed an increase in price."
A table is then given, under the following heading:
"Per cent. of increase or decrease in average prices for 19o6 as compared with those for 1905, and number of articles that increased or decreased in price by groups of commodities.

54

Number of

Group.

Commodities.

Farm products . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Food, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 53

Cloths and clothing. . . . . . 75

Fuel and lighting.. . . . . . . . . 13

Metals and implements. . . . . . 38

Lumber and building material .. 27

Drugs and chemicals. . . . . . 9

House furnishing goods. . . . . . 14

Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . ~- .. 13

Per Cent. of Increase.
36
7 I
I.S
10.4 96

Per Cent. of
Dec~ease.
o.s

I.7
74

"A reference to table IV, page 380, shows an increase in the prices for 1906 of barley, cattle, cotton, hay, hides, hogs, oats and Western sheep, but the increase for these articles was slightly more than offset by the decrease in the prices of corn, flaxseed, hops, rye, na1tive sheep and wheat.
((There UXllS a greater.increaiSe in price for metals and implements them for any other grou:p. In this group the increase for 1906 over 1905 was 10.4 per cent. Of a total of thirtyeight articles in the. group there was an increase in the prices of twenty-nine articles, including tools, barbed wire, copper, lead, pig iron, nails, silver, tin plates, etc. Seven articles, including steel rails, did not change in price, and in only two articles, bar iron at Pittsburg and files, was there a decrease.
"A study of the table shows that the group of metals and implements reached the lowest average in 1898 and the highest in Igo6."

And just here let me interrupt the quotation of impartial and highest proof to state that from no business men has there come such caustic criticism of the Railroad Commission as from the representatives of stove factories and of hardware houses, each of which is in the group of "meta.is and implements.".
It is a further fact worthy of note that, although the Standard Oil Company has been held up to public condemnation for advancing the price of petroleum, the advance it made on this product in 1906 over 1905was less than three per cent., whereas, the increase in the prices of metals, stoves and implements was more than ten per cent. I am no aj,ologist for the Standard Oil Company, but the foregoing figures are certainly an object lesson.

I I
I
I

55
THE FARMERS LOSE BOTH WAYS.
And in the meantime the fanner is getting smaller prices on his com, his wheat, his rye, etc., than he got before the freight rates were reduced, and is paying higher prices for his clothing, hats and shoes, his building materials and house furnishings, besides his stoves and hardware.
But for the organization of the farmers which, with increased markets, enabled them to get better prices for their cotton, their condition, under this general advance by the jobbers and manufacturers in the prices of nearly all articles sold in the stores, would have been serious. And even this statement is with qualification, because of the following quotation from Bulletin 69, of the Bureau of Labor:
((Cotton receded from the price shown in the early part of the year 1906, but cotton goods either a1dvarnced or remained the same during the year, except drillings and tickings which showed a slight tendency to decline.
"In the group of wool and woolen goods, wool declined slightly during the summer and early fall, but the grea1ter portion of woolen goods remarned stationarry or advanced slightly."
The above are additional instances where the fanners were the losers and the manufacturers and jobbers were getting richer.
Another illustration showing how easily the privileged class makes money out of the farmer is shown by the following clipping from an Atlanta paper, dated April 28th :
"ATLANTANS GET $4o,ooo PROFIT BY TIE RAISE. Handsome Velvet for Atlarntl:l Steel Hoop Co. Couldn't Be Dodged. Over 400,000 BClles Turrned Out Last Yearr. Increase in the Price of Ties of IO Cents Per Bundle Made by the Steel Trust Will be Observed by All Competitors.
"As the result of the increase of IO cents per bundle in the price of cotton ties announced by the United States Steel Corporation, a few days ago, the Atlanta Hoop Company will get

56

a clear profit of $40,000 over and above the profits on which

it had figured before the announcement of the raise in the price

of ties.

"This extra profit would be known in the popular vernacular

of the day as 'a very swell piece of velvet' and an interesting

feature, so far as the public is concerned, is that the local steel

company can not help taking this extra profit.

"While no annoWicement has been made as to any reluctance

on this score, it is well knoWn that the steel mills of the coun-

try, which are independent of the steel trust, are obliged to

observe its scale of prices or get themselves in bad order with

the giant combination. Of course, this would not prove profit-

able. to any company and naturally there is little disposition

on the part of anybody to buck the scale.

"Last year the Atlanta Steel Hoop Company turned out

something over 400,000 bundles of cotton ties. The mills

expect to provide as many for the cotton crop of I907. At ten

cents a bundle additional profit it does not take a mathematical

expert to figure where the $40,000 goes into the pockets of

the stockholders of the Atlanta Steel Hoop Company which,

as is well known, is owned exclusively by Atlantans, not a

dollar of the company's stock being held outside the city lim-

its."



While this may appropriately be styled "velvet" for the A~ lanta manufacturers, it is literally cold, hard steel for the Georgia farmer who will have tc- pay the extra ten cents per bundle, with no chance to get it back.

SOME STARTLING EXAMPLES.
I can not doubt that when to the upwards of $2,000,000 taken from the railroads we add the amoWlts received from the increase above the prices charged for goods before the railroad rates were red~ced in I905 we will find that the great mercantile houses and proprietors of stove factories cmd like establshments in Georgia ARE NOW COLLEC'l'ING OU'l' OF 'I'Hlt
PEOPLE MORE THAN $4,000,000 A YEAR ABOVE THEIR PROFITS
IN I9G4. That this estimate is probably under the mark let me illustrate by some examples:

57
On February r, 1905, the rate on blankets from New York to Atlanta was reduced 9 cents per roo pounds. Twenty pairs of blankets weigh roo pounds. Bulletin 63, published by the Bureau of Labor, Washington, D. C., shows that in 1905, "Blankets r r-4, 5 pounds to the pair, cotton warp, all wool
filling," were priced at $3.87 r-2 per pair. Bulletin 69, pub-
lished by the same bureau, shows that these same blankets were priced during r9o6 at $4.00 per pair. Hence, on twenty pairs of blankets THE F'REIGHT RATE from New York to Atlanta WAS 9 CENTS LESS and THE SELLING PRICE WAS$2.50 GREATER, or, if we figure it on the basis of 30,000 pounds, the freight rate was $27.00 less and the selling price $750.00 greater.
It will be noted that the present through rate on these blankets from New York to Atlanta is $r.o5 per 100 pounds, or $3rs.oo per 3o,ooo pounds. Hence,' if the rarilroa1d and stea.mship lines ha'd have !hauled them absolutely free from the Eastern city to Atlanta there would still harve been an increase of $435.00 z~n the price.
And yet, the railroad companies are mercilessly denounced for oppressing the people with "excessive freight rates," and the Railroad Commission of Georgia as mercilessly denounced for "permitting them" to do so.
FREIGHT RATE ON SHOES REDUCED $87.00. PRICE ADVANCED $3,375.00.
Let us take another example, also drawn from the Bureau of Labor's bulletins 63 and 69. Bulletin 69 says that among "the most striking increases in prices" in 1906 over 1905 was that of boots and shoes. Boots and shoes are certainly necessary articles. We will single out men's brogans, the grade generally used by the farmers. In January, 1905, the wholesale price was 92Yz cents per pair. In February and in May 1905,. the rates on traffic coming into Georgia and on that moving wholly within Georgia were reduced. Yet, in May, 1905, the price was advanced to 95 cents per pair, which

58
price, later in the year, was advanced to $1.25 per pair, and in December, I906, stood at $r.3o per pair.
Thirty pairs of these shoes weigh Ioo pounds, hence, when shipped in carload lots, the increa:si? in price wall' $3,375.00 for 30)000 pou.nds of the shoes} while THE REDUCTION IN THE FREIGHT RATE WAS $87.00. Thus it will be seen that the jobber has kept the total amount of the reduction in the freight rate and, based doubtless on the price the manufacturer has charged him, has increased the price to the retail dealer $3,288.oo besides ! And when the retail dealer sells the shoes to the farmer he must add his own profit to the multiplied profit above shown.
The freight rate, as now reduced, on shoes in carloads, is $255.00 for 30,000 pounds from New York or Boston to Atlanta. Hence, if the Railroad Commission could force the rail and water lines to haul these shoes absolutely free, there would still remain a:n increGIS'e of $3}033.00 in the price of 30poo pounds of shoes} 'Which the fa<rmers must pay. And yet, the Railroad Commission is denounced for "permitting the railroads to charge exorbitant freight rates!"
FREIGHT RATE REDUCED $87.00, PRICE ADVANCED $6,000.00.
Take another grade of shoes, men's vici kid, generally worn in the cities. The wholesale price in January, I905, was $2.05 per pair. The freight rates were reduced in February, but in March the price was advanced to $2. IO per pair. There were other advances in price till in December, I905, it stood at $2.35 per pair, which was advanced in I906, closing the year at $2-45 per pair. As these shoes weigh two pounds per pair, tpe figures furnished by the United States Bureau of Labor, at Washington, D. C., prove that THE ADVANCE IN PRICE oF 30}000 pou.nds of them 'Wctl\' SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,000.00). Yet, there was a reduction in the freight rate on them from New York or Boston to Atlanta of $87.00 on 30,000.

,..-
59
This shipment of shoes is priced at $36,750, the advance in the selling price is $6,ooo, the total freight rate is now $255.00, the reduction in the freight rate is $87.00, and yet the Railroad Commission of Georgia is denounced for "permitting the railroads to collect exorbitant freight rates"!
ADVANCE IN PRICE 38 TIMES AS MUCH AS IS THE ENTIRE FREIGHT RATE FROM BOSTON TO ATLANTA!!!
Another example: "Indigo blue suitings, all wool, 54-inch, 14 ounces to the yard." REDUCTION IN FREIGHT RATE $27.00 PER CAR LOAD OF JO,OOO POUNDS; ADVANCE IN PRICE on the same quantity $II,957.I4, or ALMOST THIRTY-EIGHT TIMES AS MUCH AS IS THE ENTIRE FREIGHT RATE.
Another example: Cotton yarns, price in January, 1905, r6Yz cents per pound; price in December, 1906, 22Yz cents per pound. Reduction in freight rate $r2.oo, advance in price $r,8oo.oo per car load of JO,ooo pounds.
PRICE OF BEDTICKS ADVANCE $1,200 PER CAR. Again, tickings for mattresses and feather beds are indis-
pensible in every farmer's house. Let us see how the freight rates affect the prices on this item. In January, 1905, "Tickings, Amoskeag, A. C. A.," were sold at ro.Yz cents per yard. In July, 1905, they advanced to rr.Yz cents per yard; in October, 1905, to r2 cents per yard, and in December, 1906, stood at I2~ cents per yard. THE FREIGHT RATES from New York and Boston to Atlanta WERE REDUCED $27.00 PER CAR LOAD of JO,OOO pou.nds February I, I905, but THE WHOLESALE PRICE IN JULY, 1905, WAS $6oo PER CAR LOAD of JO,OOO pounds GREATER than it was in Jant.t,ary, r905, and in December, r9o6, it had advanced $6oo PER CAR LOAD of JO,OOO MORE; in other words, although the Railroad Commission forced the railroads

60
to reduce the rate $27.00 per car THE MANUFACTURERS AND JOBBERS ADVANCED THE WHOLESALE PRICE $I,200 (one thousand two hundred dollars) PER CAR!
Th.e antou.nt of '!'HIS ADVANCE ALON.E IN '!'HE PRICE is almost FOUR TIMES AS GREA'I' AS IS the amount of THE ENTIRE FREIGH'I'
RA'I'E FROM Bos'I'oN To ATLANTA!

FREIGHT RATES LOWER THAN THEY HAVE EVER BEEN.
The foregoing figures, showing an enormous increase in the carload prices of shoes, clothing, etc., must come as a shock to the public, especially when in connection with the fact that THE IN'I'ERS'I'ATE RA'l'ES ARE LOWER '!'HAN THEY HAVE EVER BEEN and 'tHE RATES WI'I'HIN '!'HE S'I'A'I'E ARE LOWER '!'HAN THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE I893 But the car load prices are not the only ones which have been raised.

EXTORTION BY THE STOVE MANUFACTURERS

Turning now to the stove, another article which every

farmer must have, we find that the stove which the manufac-

turer priced to the retail dealer at $II.70 in January, I905,

he in May, I907, despite the reductions in the freight rates on

stove materials and on stoves, priced at $I3.00. And the

stove trust, about the middle of May, just past, sent out notice

to the retail dealers that the price would go up five per cent.

the first of June. In other words, the $I3.00 stove will then

be sold at $I3.65.

.

It is a sign4~ficant fact that the notice of this adva;nce of five

per cent. in the price of stoves was promulgated by the stove

trust DURING '!'HE IDENTICAL WEEK in which the Supreme

Courrt of Georgia ha:nded down its decision sustaining the or-

der of the Ra~~lroad Commission to reduce the rates in Georgia

on stoves. Thus the stove manufacturers, at the very ti<1ne

when THE FREIGH'I' RA'l'ES ON S'I'OVES ARE LOWER '!'HAN '!'HEY .

ol
HAVE EVER BEEN, ARE FORCING THE PEOPLE TO PAY THE HIGH-
EST PRICES WHICH HAVE FOR MANY YEARS BEEN CHARGED FOR
STOVES.
So, too, we find that while the freight rates on barbed wire and nails remained the same, the prices upon them were advanced to the farmer who must use them; and, while the freight rates on axes, which no family living in the country can do without, were reduced through the efforts of the Railroad Commission of Georgia, the prices on them were advanced more than $6oo per car load by the hardware dealers.
Allow me to add, tllat IF THE RAILROADS WERE HAULING ABSOLUTELY FREE OF FREIGHT CHARGES MORE THAN HALF 'tHE ITEMS I HAVE NAMED, THE PRICES TO THE CONSUMER WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE HIGHER THAN THEY HAVE BEEN AT ANY TIME FOR YEARS. And the freight rates on the others are the minor part of the total cost.
And now, lest I be misunderstood, let me say clearly and with emphasis that I have no words of criticism for the great mass of the jobbers, since I can not doubt that their advance in wholesale prices is only the reflex of the advance charged against them by the manufacturers. But I do criticise and hold up to public condemnation those individuals, whether jobbers, manufacturers, politicians or editors, who, knowing the truth, have preferred to disseminate error; who, pretending to advocate the cause of the people, have astutely protected the privileged class (whether it be composed of Northern manufacturers and jobbers or those in Georgia) which has increased the cost of living to the people. I know that it will be asserted by the5e manufacturers and their apologists that the prices of pig iron itnd other materials have enormously increased, that the wages paid to the laborers are higher than they have been fot years, or ever, and that hence they have had no recourse save to raise the prices of their products or go out of business. .That will be an honest reason, for those are established facts; but let me ask, both as an individual and as a member of the

62
Railroad Commission, which h~ been assaulted upon charges which I have proved are untrue, "WHY HAS NOT THIS REASON BEEN GIVEN TILL I HAVE MADE T.HIS EXPOSE? Why has the prvileged class} ts orators and editors} GIVEN ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT REASON} viz.: that the burden upon the people was "the excessive freight rates which the Railroad Commission has permitted the railroads to charge?"
And here let me anticipate another assertion, which I know will be made by the advocates and editors of the favored classes. They will undoubtedly say that "the Railroad Commission of Georgia had nothing to do with securing the reductions in interstate rates, effective February 1, 1905, that those rates were reduced by the railroad companies as the result of the fight made by the Atlanta Freight Bureau."
I will be clear in the statement that I have great personal regard for a vast majority of the members of the Atlanta Freight Bureau. They are gentlemen of high ~ocial standing, of commercial integrity, of unblemished personal honor. They are patriotic Georgians, and many, if not a majority, of them are church members, who worship God in spirit and in truth. Hence they will, almost with unanimity, concede tpe propriety of the remarks I will now make.
I can not admit that the court records which I have quoted and the subsequent oaths of railroad officials who swore that the rates in question were reduced "to meet the views of this Commission" are false. I scoff at the suggestion that Hon.
J. Pope Brown, whose statement on the same subject I have
quoted, has written aught save the truth.
DID ATLANTA FIGHT TO BUILD UP HER RIVALS? ANOTHER QUESTION, ALSO.
But suppose I were to follow some of the newspaper writers and orators who have gone far away from the facts in their assertion that the Atlanta Freight Bureau and not the Railroad Commission of Georgia secured the reductions in inter-

63

'

__ ,...

state rates to Rome, Athens, Augusta, Macon, Columbus_, AI.:

bany, etc., with all of which cities Atlanta is in vigorous com-

petition for the trade of Georgians, how would that admission

on my parrt prove thai the present burden tipon the farmers
and other la1boring people in Georgia is the freight mtes and

not the increase in the prices of goods which the manu{acturers

have made?

This q~estion is already so completely answered that it is

needless for me to waste words or space upon it.

A STARTLING STORY.

The official figures which I have quoted tell their ow' n story.

It is certainly a startling one. I could quote ten times as many

such figures, but these are surely enough to prove that the

privileged few whose orators and editors have temporarily de-

ceived the people are responsible for the present extortion in a

time of high prosperity. The figures show that it is not the

((excessz~ve freight ra1tes which the Railroad Commission per-

mits the railroads to charge," but it is THE EXORBITANT IN-

CREASES IN THE PRICES fixed by the marnufa.cturers and some

of the middle 11ten. IT IS CLEARLY PROVEN THAT THE REDUC-

TION IN FREIGHT RATES, although the unjust discrimination

caused by them required that they by made, SIGNALLY FAILED

TO REACH THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE. And let me add, their

increase in prices has often been made a:t the expense of even

the reta.il dea:lers.



And another test I make before leaving this suqject: Ta:ke
the drculars of the Railroad Commission, issued sirnce the gen-

eml rates w~e redu;ced in Februarry and May, I905. These

circulars ordered reductions on scores of special articles. I ask,

ON HOW MANY OF THEM ARE THE PRICES AS

LOW NOW AS THEY WERE IN JANUARY, I905?

It is, therefore, certainly pertinent to ask, ((Shall the trarns-

porta,tion facilitt~es necessary for the commerce a.rnd irntercourse
of the people of Georgia be made subservient to THE DEMANDS

64
FOR OTHER AND GREATER DIVIDENDS FOR THE MANUFACTURERS of Georgia and of other States from whom Georgi.a jobbers buyf Ought not the railroads to be protected in the power to furnish the 'People prom.pt and safe service for person and property) and SHOULD NOT FUTURE REDUCTIONS IN THEIR REVENUES BE MADE ON SUCH ITEMS AS WILL REACH THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE?
And, remember, there are thousands of citizens of Georgia who own railroad stocks and bonds. Shall their sources of support be destroyed for the purpose of giving other dividends to the manufacturers and jobbers? Remember, again, there are tens of thousands of people in Georgia who are members of the families of railroad employees. Shall they be reduced to beggary by qankrupting the railroad companies in order to give the manufacturers and jobbers another dividend?
In the meantime, it is certainly pertinent to ask directly the question which is clearly inferred from the facts I have adduced, viz.: "WHEREIN HAS IT BENEFITED THE PEQPLE TO REDUCE THE FREIGHT RATES?"
But a reduction in passenger rates is in its results radically different from a reduction on many classes of freight. THE FREIGHT REDUCTION REACHES THE CLASSES-and) as the present condi#ons PROVE) lodges 7.dth them.
THE PASSENG~R REDUCTION REACHES THE MASSES.
Every man and woman, and every child above seven years of age; every white person, every negro; every ~oor person or rich person receives a benefit from the reduced passenger rate every time he or she travels-and there are hundreds of thousands who travel, many of them many times a year. I may add, thaf af the hearing of this case, Ap,ril 23d ult., statistics were quoted, showing that 89 per cent. of the population of Georgia live in the country. If this be correct, and if only I20 per <i:ent. of these residents of the country, who are mostly

65
farfi)ers, travel, the number is greater than that of all the_rest of the population of Georgia. Of course, this means the number who travel, not the number of trips.
WHY WAS THE RAILROAD COMMISSION URG.ED TO ''MAKE HASTE SLOWLY" IN REDUCING. THE PASSENGER :J;tATES?
Now, it being incontestably true that the reduction of upwards of $2,ooo,ooo in freigbt rates did not reach the farmers and other laboring people, but was absorbed by the merchants and owners of the factories, and it being equally true that a reduction of the passenger rates would directly benefit every one of the people who has to travel, another interesting question arises, viz. : Why is it that certain newspapers have aggressively taken stand on the proposition that it is more important to reduce further the freight rates than to reduce the passenger rates? In fact, cne of them, in its issue of April 2d, has called upori the Railroad Commission to "MAKE HASTE 'SLOWLY"- in the nwtter of reducing the passenger ra:tes. In other words, "GO SLO\V ABOUT HONORING A PETITION BY THE FARMERS."
In its issue of May 2d, however, after the Railroad Commission, ignoring its "make haste slowly" call, had held two sessions, hearing exhaustive arguments on the farmers' petition herein considered, the paper in question declared itself in favor of "no delay in demanding and enforcing a reduction in passenger rates on the railroads."
The "demand" had already been ma<le by the farmers of Georgia, and the Railroad Commission was already in consultation on the matter of "enforcing a reduction in passenger rates on the railroads."
The newspaper, however, coupled with this tardily aroused impulse to demand a reduction in th~ passenger rates on the railroads the following as its own judgment: "We have .been very carreful to insist' tha:t, if necessary, THIS REFORM

66
SHOULD BE POSTPON.BD to the one of grea:ter necessity) viz.: the reduction of freight ra:tes. WE STILL REGARD THE MATTER OF FREIGHT REDUCTION AS THE MORE VITALJ because it directly affects a greater number of people.))
The evidence I have already introduced, showing that. the masses of the people were not allowed to share in the enormous reduction which the Railroad Commission brought about in the freight rates would seem to be conclusive proof that the teachings of the writer of the above statement are unfit to be relied upon.
SHOULD THE _RAILROAD COMMISSION HAVE REGARDED THE DEMAND TO STILL FURTHER ENRICH THE FEW AT 'l'HE EXPENSE OF THE MASSES?
Hence, many may assert that there is but one l?gical inference to be drawn from the utterances I have refhred to and quoted, and that inference is that those whose views are thus -expressed are more interested i.n still fucrther enriching th~ privileged few than they a!Ye in helping the people. The fact that the comparatively few beneficiaries of the enormous reduction of more than $2,ooo,ooo in the freight rates made one profit by the reduction in freight rates and another, and greater, profit by raising the prjces on the people to figures higher than they were before the freight rates were reduced, conjoined with the editorial utterances in question would seem to prove that THE VERY BASEWORK OF THE CONTENTION involved in the latter is to enrich still further the Eastern ma:nufacturers a:nd the few in Georgia to whom the ra~~lroads and THE LABORING PEOPLE_ HAVE BEEN FORCED TO PAY TRIBUTE) and, that in order to do that t~ as great an extent as the railroads can be made to bear,
THE ONE PARTICULAR REDUCTION WHICH WILL INEVITABLY
BENEFIT THE PEOPLE MUST BE uPO.STPONED/J and that which will still further ENRICH THE FEW must be forced to the front.
Suppose the Railroad Commission should acquiescet'ltly post-

67
pone the reduction in passenger rates and order ( :m.l f+nJ means to make effective) a still further reduction in the freight rates, what guarantee, what promise, have we that the laooring people will be allowed to share it? As they were not allowed to share the reduction of upwards of $2,ooo,ooo already made, but have paid higher prices than they did before the reduction was made, would it not be their fate to have the prices raised again if the freight rates were reduced again? Experience certainly answers that they would.
Of course, there will come denial of the charge I distinctly and directly make; but atgcrt'nst that inevitable denial I place the prt~ces furnished by the statistical bureau of the United States Government, I place the testimony of every fatrmer or other laboring man who. will compare the prices at which he now buys goods with those at which he bought them in and before January, I905. Hence, let the farmers and labor unions of Georgia b;Y imperative in the demand that the advocates of so-:-called "refprm" answer the questions: "WITH THE FREIGHT RATES REDUCED FROM $3.00 TO $87.00 PER CARLOAD} WHY WERE THE PRICES OF GOODS RAISED TO FIGURES ENORMOUSLY ABOVE THOSE WHICH PREVAILED BEFORE THE REDUCTION IN FREIGHT RATES? And, with the increased prices proving that we were not allowed to share THE REDUCTION oF $2,ooo,ooo IN THE FREIGHT RATES made in I905J why do you declare tha.t it is more importa:nt to reduce further the freight rates than to reduce the passenger rates} WHICH LATTER REDUCTION WE CERTAINLY WOULD SHARE?"
And is not the suggestion a good one which was recently made to me by a gentleman, viz. : "That the General Assembly} a1t its pending session} appoint a committee to take testimony as to the reductions already made in freight ra.tes} and ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MASSES HAVE SHARED THE BENEFITS} or whether these benefits harve been a:bsorbed by a farvored few} who} not satisfied with the profits thus monopolized} have even INCREASED THE BURDENS OF HIGH PRICES on the masses?}}
.

68
Summing up the issue upon wh1ch the above investigation may be based, let me say, THE PRICES ARE THE PROOF.
Take the prices in January, 1905, deduct the amounts of the reductions in freight rates in February and May, 1905, and note what the prices should have been in June, 1905, then see what were the prices in June, 1905, and what are the prices now. Let me respectfully suggest that the committee begin on the following articles, for example: Stoves, boots a1~cl shoes, sheetings, tickings, print cloths, ginghams, nails, axes, augurs, door locks and knobs, putty, crude brimstone for fertilizers, chairs, laundry starch and raw jute.
The problem is not an abstruse one. It can be worked out by simple subtraction and addition of figures. And in that subtraction and addition of figures is found the vindication of the Railroad Commission of Georgia.
And now, in turning from the further consideration of the fact that the masses of the people were not allowed to share in the enormous reduction of freight rates whichr the Railroad Commission secured for their benefit, let me address these words to the people of Georgia:
HAVE THE OWNERS OF RAILROAD PROPERTY EQUAL RIGHTS WITH THE OWNERS OF OTHER PROPERTY TO THE PROTECTION OF THE LAWS P
"My countrymen, as my mental eyes behold it, we are approaching the gravest crisis which has threatened you in m~ny years; a crisis made possible, nay, probable, by the avowed declaration in high circles that the owners of railroad property shall not have the same protection of the laws that is guaranteed to the owners of cotton factories and stove factories, to the jobbers of hardware, dry-goods and sho~s, to the owners of warehouses, banks and farms.
((The issu.e can not be disgu.t'sed: it is not an assault u.pon (the railroads/ IT IS AN ASSAULT BY THE MANU-
.

69
F ACTURERS AND JOBBERS UPON THE OWNERS OF RAILROAD PROPERTY. Will the State authorities 'umpire it' fairly, or will they take sides with the former who are making net profits of from forty to one hundred per cent., and against the latter, whose net earnings are not averaging six per cent?
"Hold clearly in view the fact from which the orators and editors of tbe privileged few have sought to div.ert your minds, viz. : that the railroad is not a mysterious, intangible monster; iT IS A PROPERTY owned by citizens, by widows and orphans,. by educational and benevolent institutions; a property which gives to each other kind of property from one-half to fivesixths of its present value; a property, without the existence of which a vast proportion of the other property in Georgia would not, could not, exist.
"Will yotl,allow that property of those who have bought it in the faith that Georgia would protect them equally with the holders of all other property in her borders, and through it pay one-eighth of the taxes of Georgia, to be destroyed, and 1cn~th that destruction of the power of ma1ny of its owners to buy their d&ily bread, bring a panic which will cut probably in two the prices of every bale of cotton, bushel of grain or ton of hay the Georgia farmers produce; that will not only disastrously reduce the public school fund and with it the wages of every laboring man, but will throw tens of thousands out of employment, bringing famine to their families.
"Shall prejudice supplant wisdom, shall greed expel justice; shall reckless vindictiveness thrust from the helm the hand of moderation? \Nill you allow this blot, this bli_ght, this ruin?"
I have already touched upon some of the points made by the representatives of the railroads at the ,hearing on this question April 23-24, ult., but will here comment briefly upon other statements by them.
First, "the smaller roads," as they were termed, presented

70
their general defense in qulk, from which and from independent reports by some of them it was shown that the following roads, although authorized to charge four cents per mile, really sell tickets at only three cents per mile: Douglas, Augusta & Gulf Railroad, Fitzgerald, Ocmulgee & Red Bluff, Flint River & Gulf Railroad, Flint River & Northeastern Railroad, Garbutt & Donovan Short Line, Georgia Coast & Piedmont (in part), Georgia Northern Railway, Millen & Southwestern, Nashville & Sparks, Ocilla & Valdosta, Savannah & Statesboro, Vald6sta Southern, Wadley Southern.
And the following roads, although authorized to charge five cents per mile, are reported as selling tickets at four cents per mile: Louisville & Wadley, Tallulah Falls.
The above named roads can scarcely object, therefore, to having their actual rate confirmed as the legally authorized rate. In fact, under the words of this Commission's Circular No. 314, the reduced tates are already their legal rates.
Secondly, it was shown by statistics that the population per square mile of counties in Northern and Eastern States traversed by railway lines which charge only two cents per mile is greatly in excess of the population per square mile in Georgia. But this cuts both ways, for it may justly be claimed that the low fares, enabling the people to interchange freely, have greatly aided in attracting population and creating wealth. But it must be conceded that a change from three cents per mile to two cents per mile flat in Georgia would be too great a change. It is not conced~d, however, that Georgia can stand no reduction at all from three cents.
But in the preparation of these statistical tables, it must be borne in mind that the passenger rate can not be made in relation to the density or sparseness of population, for if it were the rate in Georgia should be eleven times as high as it is in' Rhode Island and nine times as high as it is on the New York Central Railroad--or the reverse should be the rule. I may add that, if the comparisons of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad in Georgia with the roads in Michigan, Ohio and New

71
York be correct, they prove that in the thinly s~ttled Georgia counties the people travel proportionately more than do those in the thickly settled sections of the North.
If statistical tables, showing comparisons of population and wealth be the basis .for the adjustment, we s}:10uld begin at home-in Georgia. Let us do this. The three cents per mile rate which stood the test for being just and reasonable when established, was made effective in 1881. In 188o, the preceding year, the population of Georgl'a was 1,537,000. In 1900 it was 2,216,ooo. It is now estimated to be more than 2,400,000. Hence, the population is sixty per cent. greater now than it was when the three-cent rate was made. Again, in 1881 the total taxable value of property in Georgia was $270,993,888. In 1906 the total taxable value was $627,531,539. Hence the wealth is over 130 per cent. greater now than it was when the three cent rgte was made. As we are handling a matter located in Georgia, not in Rhode Island or New York, the statistics in Georgia certainly are entitled to have greatest weight.
Again, it was contended by several of the defendants that travel was increased by facilities, not by reduced rates. But statistics .were read, proving that a marked increase in trains and other "facilities" by the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad was not followed by a corresponding increase in travel, whereas I have shown herein -that on the Western & Atlantic Railroad, in Georgia, a reduction of about twenty per cent. in the rate on a graded scale was followed by an increase of upwards of forty per cent. in the number of passengers, and that in Hungary, on the same kind of scale, the increase in passengers was as marked.
Thirdly, it was strenuously insisted qy some of the defendants that if the passet}ger rate be reduced, capital would be discouraged from coming to Georgia. But allow me to say that we must not subordinate the present needs and rights of the people of the State to the desire and attempt to induce more capital. Right is above price. The people who are here now -our own blood and bone-are entitled to the first considera-

72
tion of those who are placed in charge of their affairs. We must protect their equities in their own State, even though the result be the refusal of outside capitalists to locate their investments here. The capitalist who comes to Georgia must be willing to take share and share alike with our people.
Fourthly, it was stated by a representative of a labor organization that a reduction of rates was never followed by an advance in wages. This is a great mistake, for the reduction of upwards of $2,ooo,ooo in freight rates in 1905 has been followed by the greatest increase in wages this generation has known.
Fifthly, it was stated at the hearing that the reduction in the passenger rate would be followed by the running of fewer trains, with cars inferior to those now in use. Permit me to remark, on this point, that no such results followed the reduc-tion of the passenger rate on the Western & Atlantic Railroad in ~888. On the contrary, the advance of the rate from the graded scale to three cents per mile was followed by a reduction in the number of passenger trains run.
Therefore, in view of the facts and for the reasons above recited, I make this motion, viz. :
First. That the passenger rates on each of the railroads named in Group A, herewith following, shall b,e made on the graded scale therein named.
Secondly. That the passenger rates on each of the railroads named in Group B shall be made, so far as their mileage will bring them respectively under the successive gradations, on the following scale :
For distances not exceedingseventy-five miles, 2,Yz cents per
mile. For distances between seventy-five miles and two hundred
miles, inclusive, 2?4 cents per mile.
For distances exceeding two hundred miles, 2 cents per mile.
Thirdly. That the passenger rates on each of the railroads named in Group C shall be made, so far as their mileage will

73
bring them respectively under the successive gradations, on the following scale :
For distances not exceeding one hundred miles, 20 cents
per mile.
For distances between two hundred miles and three hundred
miles, 2 74 cents per mile.
For distance!) over three hundred miles, 2 cents per mile.
Fourthly. That the passenger rates on each of the railroads named in Group D shall be 3 cents per mile.
Fifthly. That the passenger rates on each of the railroads named in Group E shall be as therein specified.
Sixthly~ That the passenger rates on each of the railroads named in "Special Group" shall be as therein specified.
Seventhly, That the minimum charge for distances not exceeding four miles may be ten cents per passenger on all railr?ads named in Groups A, B and C. On other groups except "'Special Group," minimum of ten cents per passenger may be applied for two miles or less.
Eighthly, That whenever in working out the rate on the mileage scale named in Groups A, B and C, the final figure is other than o or 5, the railroads are authorized to increase the amount to the next o or 5
Note.-Whenever, in changing from a zone to the next zone the reduced rate per mile makes a lower rate to the first station or more in the farther zone than was made by the higher rate per mile to the last station in the nearer zone, the rate to such stations successively reached shall be the same as to the last station in: the nearer zone until the lower rate prescribed for the farther zone will make a higher rate.
Example.-In Group A, for fifty miles, the rate of 20
cents per mile would make $1.25.
Hence, for distances fifty to fifty-five miles, inclusive, the
price of a ticket would be $1.25.

74
GROUP A.
Atlanta & West Point RailroadFor distances not exceeding fifty miles, 20 cents per mile; for distances over fifty miles, 2 _% cents per mile. Western & Atlantic RailroadFor distances not exceeding fifty miles, 20 cents per mile. For distances over fifty miles and not exceeding one hundred
miles, 2;-i cents per mile. For distances over IOO miles, 2Ys
cents per mile.
GROUP B.
Alabama Great Southern Railway. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway. Georgia Railroad.
GROUP C.
Atlanta & Birmingham Air Line Railway. Central of Georgia Railway. Seaboard Air Line Railway. Southern Railway. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway.
(The other groups, or classes, we are agreed upon.)

75
ADDENDUM.
Statistics prove that more than three-fourths of the pnssengers on every railroad in Georgia ride less than fifty miles per trip. It is an established fact that the expense of hauling passengers is greater for short distances than for long distances. The zone system, a~ proposed, allows the railroad companies a reasonable profit on the short-haul passengers and reduces the rate per mile over long distances, where the expense per mile is less to the railroad companies, whereas, the "flat" rate per mile, as proposed, does not allow the Atlanta & Vvest Point Railroad Company and the lessees of the Western & Atlantic Railroad a rate per mile sufficient to pay the cost of transporting those passengers who ride less than thirty miles per trip and ~rely enough to meet the expense of transportation of those riding over distances between thirty miles and, possibly, sixty miles. The modicum of profit which these two railroad companies make on pas:;enger_s riding more than sixty miles per trip (and this includes not more than one-seventh of their passengers) will, therefore, be far more than neutralized by the loss they will suffer on every passenger they haul less than thirty miles, and this includes a large majority of their passengers, on a rate of two cents per mile, if they be ultimately forced to put the two-cent per mile rate into effect.
And the railroad companies who, it is proposed, shall transport passengers on a "flat" rate of 2 7:4. cents per mile will meet a loss scarcely less severe, for the great majority of their passengers ride less than fifty miles per trip.
The proper solution of the problem would be to follow the freight rule and allow the railroad companies a higher rate per mile for short distances than for long distances, since the expense, as stated, is greater per mile for transporting passengers over short distances than over long distances. This will be just to the railroad companies, because the greater number of their passengers ride over short distances; and it will enable

76 '

a much greater number of people to ride over long distances than the number now able to make the trips on the "flat" rate per mile. This increase in the number of long-distance passengers riding on a rate which allows the railroad companies a substantial profit per passenger will more than offset the gradedreduction in the rate per mile; whereas, when p(JISsengers are transported at an actual loss per mle, (JIS, certanly, the Atlanta & West Point Ralroa.d Company arnd the lessees of the Western & Atlantic Railroad, it is proposed, shall do, THE GREATER
THE NUMBER TRANSPORTED THE GREATER THE LOSS WILL BE.
While, therefore, I deem it true that my esteemed associates, the majority of the Railroad Commission, propose that the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company, the lessees of the Western & Atlantic Railroad, the lessees of the Georgia .Railroad and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company shall transport P'(JISSengers at less thqn cost for short distances, it coordinately, in my opinion, requires the people who hava occasion to ride long distances to pay more for that transportation t~an they should equitably qe required to pay.
I give below a comparison of some of the long-distance rates as proposed by me between certain points on the basis of the zone system and the rates proposed by the majority of the Railroad Commission between the same points, on the basis of the "flat" rate per mile:

Zone Rate. Dalton to Brunswick ................. $7 76 Rome to Brunswick ............... , . . 6 96 Rockmart to Brunswick ............ ~ . 6 52 Dallas to Brunswick ................. 6 I8 Gainesville to Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 Lula to Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 Toccoa to Brunswick .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 36 Dalton to Jesup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 96 Dalton to Hazlehurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 04
Toccoa to Baxley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70
Toccoa to Surrency .................. 6 IQ

Flat Rate.
$ 9 70 8 70 8 IS 7 72 8 20
8 52 9 20 8 70
7 55 7 45 7 .70

77
Rome to Helena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 33 Cornelia to Hawkinsville . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 84 11acon to Toccoa ................... 4 07 Gainesville to Lumber City ........ . . . . 5 29 Savannah to Summerville . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 o8 Savannah to Rome .................. 7 44 Savannah to Carrollton .............. 6 22 Savannah to Newnan ................ 6 46 Milledgeville to Carrollton . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 Millen to Carrollton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 22 Millen to Cedartown ................. 6 I4 Griffin to Waynesboro ................ 4 34 Tennille to Cedartown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 88 Americus to Rome ................... 5 I8 Albany to Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 Athens to Cuthbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 04 Monticello to Blakely ................ , 4 50 Fort Gaines to Covington ............. 4 9I Arlington to Madison ................ 4 82 Rome to Thomasville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 93 Greensboro to Georgetown . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 29 Dublin to LaFayette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 Savannah to Columbus ............... 5 77 Sandersville to Georgetown . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 Valdosta to Trion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 33 Tifton to Toccoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 43 Waycross to Rome ................... 7 93 Dalton to Dublin .................... 6 I4 Calhoun to Savannah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 40 Marietta to Louisville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 23 Marietta to Blackshear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 Cartersville to Quitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I2 Dawson to Cornelia .................. 5 85 Cordele to Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 5 Fitzgerald to Rome .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 36 Cedartown to Brunswick ............. 6 85 Ringgold to Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 14

59~
5 3S
4 53: 5 88:
IO IO
8 sz
7 28: 7 I8
3 98:
sSo
6 83
4 83-
5 42
5 75
5 33
soo
5 00 5 45 5 35 8 5I
5 78
7 40 6 65
5 OJ
9 25 7 I6 _
8 70 6 64 8 56 5 6o 6 96 7 20 6 36-
5 66
6 77 8 48 9 I&

INDEX.

PAGES.
Hon. J. Pope Brown's motion, offered August 3, 1904, to make 2
cents per mile the maximum passenger rate on the main lines in Georgia, based on reasons which rendered'it impossible for tile Railroad Commission to legally enact it................ .

The railroad companies refusing to reduce t_he inter-state freight rates into Georgia, the Railroad Commission issues its Circulars Nos. 301 and 302 "to enable the Georgian to trade with the Georgian.'' These circulars are temporarily enjoined in the U. S. Circuit Court. A compromise effected, resulting in thereduction of inter-state rates reaching nearly all--points in Geor-

gia........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Great reduction of rates on business moving wholly within the State follows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g-10

The Atlanta" Port Rate Petition" could not be legally granted... Rates from Georgia ports to Georgta interior cities are now lower than are
the rates from ports to interior cities of adjoining .)fates.. . . . . . . . . . . .

1o--14 14- IS

TOTAL REDUCTION OF FREIGHT RATES SECURED BY THE RAIL ROAD COMMISSION FOR THE PEOPLE OF {;iEORGIA EXCEEDED
$2,000,000. .. . .... .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .

IS-22

Hearing, April 20, 1905, on motion to reduce passenger rates to 2 cents per mile. Opinions filed by the Commissioners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-26

Analyzed statement of earnings of railroads in Georgia................ 26-2S

Comparative cost of handling passengers and freight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-30 Reasons why the ZONE SYSTEM, which is the basis of freight rates,
should also be the basis of passenger rates ................. 3I-36, 42-I43
THE ZONE SYSTEM of passenger rates originated in Georgia;
afterwards adopted in Hungary and later in Russia. Astonishing results, benefiting both the masses of the people and the owners of the railroads... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 45

The freight rates as promulgated by the Railroad Commission are based on equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-49

THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE FAILED TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF THE REDUCTION OF $2,ooo,ooo MADE IN THE FREIGHT RATES IN rgos. It was absorbed by the manufacturers and middle men. Amazing advances in prices of goods despite the enormous reductions in freight rates. . . . . . . . . .
THE PASSENGER RAIE REDUCTION REACHES THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50-64 64

80

INDEX.

PAGES. THE RAILROAD COMMISSION WAS URGED TO "MAKE .HASTE
SLOWLY" IN REDUCING THE PASSENGER RATES. Why? BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURERS AND MIDDLE MEN WANT ANOTHER BIG DIVIDEND BY A FURTHER REDUCTION

IN THE FRE~GHT RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .
FUTURE REDUCTIONS IN FREIGHT RATES SHOULD BE ON SUCH ITEMS AS WILL REA~H THE MASSES

65-66

OF THE PEOPLE............... .. . .... . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .

64

URGE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO INVESTIGATE THE FREIGHT

RATE REDUCTIONS ALREADY MADE AND FIND WHO

GOT THEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

Are the citizens of Georgia and of other States who have invested their money in stocks and bonds of railroads in Georgia entitled to the same protection of the laws as are those who have invested their money in factories, stores, bank stocks and farms ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68-69'

The ZONE RATES as proposed................................ . 72-77

Analyzed Statement of the Earnings and Expenses of the Railroads in Georgia.

..
RAII,ROADS.

Revenue on Passengers only.

1893

I 1}106

Total Number of Pass e n g e r s.

I

1895

1906

Average per Passen- Average Distance

gP-r per Mile (cen ts).

-

Traveltd per PassengeJ:: (miles).

1895

190G

1895

1906

Freight Earnings.

l ::l95

1906

. 'l'otal Number of Tons

Average Rate per Ton per Mile

of Freight.

(cent s) .

1895

I 1906 ' 1895

1906

Av e r a g e D is t a n c e terTon per ~ ile Hauled.

l 1895

hi06

Total Operating Expenses.

1895

190()
I

. Total Gross Earnings.

1895

I l!l06

Net Earnings.

1895

I 1906

Miles Ope r a t e d .
1895 1 1906

Net Earnings per Mile.

1895

I 1906

Albany & Norther n (1896) . .......... . ..... $ 6,381 67 $ 34,71() 28

Atlanta & West Point ..... . . . ....... .. .... ]()8,676 16

366,852 49

10,595 220,425

70,369 422,571

3, 142 2,391

3,472 2,211

18 .88 32 00

14 .21 39 . 26

$ 22,338 66 $ 72,216 26

246,130 55

553,607 09

28,758 214,905

103,118 556,342

3,230 1,730

2,499 1,584

24 .05 66.00

28 .02 62.81

$ 31,026 01 $ 277,015 75

82,560 07 646,292 05

$ 32,903 40 $ 111,403 79 474,022 30 1,024,653 45

$ 830 i O $ 197,006 55

26,649 44 397,681 16

35

35 $

23 73 $

761 40

86

86

2,409 45

4,629 05

Atlantic Coast Line . ... . . .... . ..... . ..... . Savannah, Florida & Western (1897). .. 332,627 59} Brun swick & Western (1897) . . .... ... .. 94,384 33 - -- - 427,011 92
.. Augusta Southern (18!lB) . .. .... . .. . ... .. . 15,625 06

{ 1,059,192

82

-

347,628}
-1-16,-740-

464,368

40,065 55

53,457

{ Central of Georgia .. . ...... . ..... . .. :. .. .. . Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus (1896 ;..

877,944 48 ~ 53,898 74

2,062,060 83

1,032,131} 147, 284

Georgia Railroad. . . . . . . . . . . o o
Georgia Souther n & Florida ...... . . .. . .... . Atlantic, Valdosta & Western (189\J). ...

346,307 55 211,708 55~
7,382 12

724,454 41
l 482,171 62

32 1,986 213,524 ~
7,196

Louisville & Nashville.. . ..... .. . .. . . . . . ... . 66,723 16

90,243 ?1

89,173

Macon & Birmingham (1897) . . . ... .... .. .. . 17,287 (53

44,292 28

22,390

Macon , Dublin & Savannah . ..... .. ..... . . , . 15,172 58

64,593 7fl

22,708

''3eaboard Air Line. (1901) ... . .......... ... .. 437,177 44

807,355 12

491,838

Atlanta & Birmingham Air Line.. . . . . .. . . . Not built. - -79-,3-83 -73 .... ... . ... .. ' 887,738 85

{ 1 ,127,274

2,267} 2,668

l 2,770

42.20 ~ 30.31

79,830 ... ... ....

{ 2,752,109

2,612 ( 2,653 '

814.950 2,593

l 513,062

2,Fi00} 3,900

105 ,805 00 o o o o 76,038 2,859

96,27o 2,609

760,881 2,203
71,428 . .. .. .. .. .

832,309

. 2,576 2,455 2,561 2,513 2,975 2,323 2,870 2,382 2,923

.... . ...
l 32.50} 13 .82 41. 49
{ 39.69} 20 .00
o
27.00 25.61 40.35
O ooo

36 83
19 .48 30.85 34.72 37.41 28 . 67 25.07 23 . 27 44 .54 38 . 02

{ 1,004,845 23 } 442,140 78
1,446,986 01

3,191,960 63 {

693,97!1 ~ 493,102

- - --

1,187,081

{ 2,608,516

1,201 } 1,274

32,493 71

116,159 43

29,544

86,916 . .. . . . . . ..

{ 2,691,919 57} 166, 713 91

6,078,450 67 {

1,912,648} 269,938

3,741,013 {

1,232 } 005

894,173 87
~ 551,936 91 ~ 49,723 78 159,577 92 41,639 49 31,802 24 1,667,944 72

1,960,071 94
855,022 54 ~
373,980 40 112,292 55 189,886 13 2,509,718 85

707,048 477,564 ~ 53,788 117,~21 46,753
24,128 1,497,894

1,615,052 1,080

{ 821,879

1,458 l 2,768

473,711 0 0 0 0 12.'3,529 1,727 190,083 3,573 2,251,676 1,827

- -291 -,184-52 - 5-90,5-01 0 '

00 00 0 o oOo

0 00

2,800, 903 37

2,842, 177

1,127 { 120 . 59} 70.38

108.53

1,622,57-l 65

3,052,013 23 2,228,133 02 4,727,493 61

605,558 37

1,675,480 38

544

595

3,717 .. ... ... .

1,113 ~ 114 .21}
70.88

1,056 117 . 04

l 1,187

86.88 } 33 .00

662 . . .. .... ..
1,379 51.57 i ,725 36.69 1,008 102 .84
927 . . o o oo

35 .96

53,698 73

146 .04

{

2,739,222 217,677

12 } 81

175,083 53

71,649 47

l 6,411,020 39

3,955,358 96} 241,330 48

165,883 51

25,753 21

l 8,9 1~,71 9 97

1,216, 136 84} 23,652 67

12,895 27 Deficit.
:-!,753,223 15

I 83
l 965} 138

83
l 1. 318

114.95

98 1,515 85

l 87 .60

614,962 40 ~ 19,425 55

2,063,815 24 1.355,445 33

l 1,047,093 33

843,557 92} 59,048 07

2,842,497 17

320,273 60

{ 1,551,826 37

228/>95 52~ 39, 622 52

778,681 93 504,733 04

307

3C7

167

l 249

J19.25 65.93 57 . 58

207,961 60 83,056 98 42,212 18

588,295 84 138,182 83 205,070 65

132,771 86 61,970 00 5l ,951 92

509,730 75 164,883 77 270,039 89

23,061 21
2!,086 98 Defici t . 9,739 74

68,430 40 Deficit. 26,700 94
69,969 24

IH

159

105

105

54 . 93

106.54. 1,600,519 17

2,500,866 77 2,088,516 08 3,528,308 64

392,755 17

1,027,441 87 }

.. ... 53.17 . ..... .. ... . ... 343,879 Po . . ... . .. ..
- ---

U1,8<J4 16 o ooo

68,014 20

- -- --

--- ----

636

723

2,844, 7-!6 73

3,940,202 so

1,095,456 07

898 so
314 06 1,507 95 }
176 59 1,404 20 1,531 28 }
835 25 584 50 Deficit. 213 61
617 54

2,348 88
Deficit. 2,103 17 2,536 42 2,109 64
Deficit . 254 29 683 37
1,577 06

Southern Railway Lines, viz:

Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line (1896) .. . Georgia Midland (11'96) .. ..... ~ . . . .. .

292,212 67 46, 42~ 46

490,626 73 103,294 31

243,899 87,533

- - - - - Routhern Railway (other lines, 1896) .. 672,896 62 1,302,181 51

Elberton Ai r Line (1896) .

... .. ... ....

-

10,978
---

57
--

-

27,006 16
---

tl l8,876 24,587
-

1,022,510 32 1,923,108 71

974,895

390,405 146,0fl7
971,060 60, 704
--- -
1,568,256

1,841 2,676 2,247 2, 220

2,286 2,6 15 2,388 2,695

65 .09 27.25
57.00 20.11

54.96 27.04
56 15 16.51

300,831 65 89,638 99 1,908,682 77 35,756 28
2,334,909 69

856.143 66

423,278

186,506 52

79.689

3,285,715 14 1,948,334

-

102,007 72
---

-

--36,9-08

4,430,373 04 2,488,209

955,428 171,7i6 3,841,005 88,414
- --
5,056,623

805 1,173
912 3,532

1,058 85.44 1,815 99 .60
762 . . . . . ... ..
4,274 27.37

81.26 59 .81

4ilO,Sl9 59 131,447 45

1,144, 713 52 236,03~ 36

618641,,532055 2244}

112.31 1,910,566 19 4,000,222 9:! 2,309,368 98

- -- - - - - -- - - - - - 26.99

42,9:~6 95

74,972 93

49,868 45

2,56.5, 770 18

5,455,941 73 3,205,067 92

{ J '
7,019,194 54

182,026 68') 32,85i 80 701,290 92

4,615 00

920,790 40

1,482,653 37

795

Hartwell Railway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .

1,752 55

3,!180 78 oo

9,966 ... . ... . . . . 3,091 . . ..... .. . 10 . 00

7,408 52

14,793 61 . . - .. ... .

18,099 . . .. .. .. . 8,093 .. . . . . . . . 10.10

7,835 89

15,724 07

9,649 96

19,577 51

1,814 07

3,446 25

10

South Georgia Railway (1898) ... . . .. . . . ..

3,911 22

... ... . .. ... 20,310 84 O OOo o oo 0

o 0

o o oooo oo

00 0 o o ooo o o

30,945 17

. . .... . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. 66,596 42 o oo o 0

. 00 0

o

20,960 83

42,631 76

34,778 14

90,603 17

13,903 98

. 47,971 41

23

Stillmore Air Line (1897) .. . . .. . .. . .. ..... .

9,309 97

30,569 42

22,463 (1904) 45,752

2,302

0

18.95 . .. ... ....

25,359 67

37,895 10

33,342 (1904) 26,7fi2 3,454 .... .. . . 21 .00 . . . . ...

19,244 11

68,318 29

36 ,713 09

73,092 01

17,468 98

4,773 72

34

Tallulah Falls Railway . ... . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .

4,319 60

23,260 23

15,479

107,725 oo o

1,613

ooo o oo

13. 38

4,169 26

34,384 60

6,228

40,384 . . . .. . ... 3,388 . . . . ... . . . 25 . 10 liJ0,29H 05

51,903 06

10,261 gq

61,914 59

31 16

7,749 89

21

Wadley& Mt. Vernon R. R . (18m).. . . .. . . ..

6,078 34

11,962 ll8 .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. ... . .... .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . o oo o oooo 0

31,425 28

29,162 52 . . . ... . .. .. . .. 44,634 . . . .. . .. .

. .... ... . ... . . . . .

17,106 09

38,902 83

89,943 78

44,028 18

Deficit. 22,837 69

5,125 35

30

Western & Atlantic (1896) . .. ... . .. . ..

i 337,051 51

Rome Railroad (1896) . ..... .. ... . ... . . . 10,281 21
- - ---

347,332 72

405,901f 19 {

352,580 ~ 25,259

- - -- -

377,839

395,6021 {

1,825 ( 2,565 '

{ 2,500

52.37 } 15 . 86

40.23

l 974,747 60 ~ 19,967 34
- - -- 994,714 94

2,063,227 15 {

1,140,308 ~ 50,078

- - --

1, 190,386

l 1,356,046

814 ~ 2,415

l { - -- - - 942

~

103 .85} 16 .51

114. 00
-

961,561 31 ( 26,997 60
- - ----

2,001,708

45

-

1,568,462 61 }
-S.5-,7t5-2 4-0

2,525,735 69 56,547 51
- -- -

606,898 30 8,547 00
- - -- -

618,681 -14 ~ 21,891 06

156

9~8,56 1 91

1,604,225 01

2,582,283 20

615,445 30

M0,572 50

Wrightsville & Tennille (1898) . .... . . . . . . . . 19,305 64

66,.~69 24\

50,642

* Reported m tables as $9,652.04. but m Oonumsswners' Annnal Report as $10,293.05.

142,7081 2,54:)

2,557

14 .98

18 . 23

64,111 21

114,428 83

93,417

107,908 2,785

3,1 12 .. .. .. .. . . 34.09

60,705 79

128.431 57 I

90,493 72

199,521 24

29 ,787 93

65,215 74 I 36

880

1,157 91

10 36 M 42 37
l 156

223 29 400 57 631 57 Defici t . 734 23 5,000 39 } 471 55

110

973 36

1,393 47
359 89 1,243 10
88 40 200 41 138 52 5,097 48 I ,2C6 12
1,767 17