Report of Georgia public service commission. Sixty-first through sixty-second report, 1933-1934

61st A N N U A L REPORT 1933
OF
''GEORGIA %
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS
COMMISSIONERS JU D P. W ILH OIT, Chairman GEO. L. GOODE THOS. K. DAVIS BEN T. H UIET J. B. DANIEL JA CK M. FO RRESTER, Secretary

1935

STEIN PRINTING COMPANY

STATE PRINTERS

ft

n

ATLANTA

O D dU 6

THE GENERAL LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
ATHENS, GEORGIA

145

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

Letter of Transmittal....... ................. ........................... ................................... 1-16

Telephone Order...... ................................

1-10

Freight Rates........ ................ ............................. ......... ...10-11

Electric Service Rates_________ ___________ __ _____ 11-16

Alphabetical List of Utilities under Jurisdiction__ L...................... ......... 17-22

Telephone Companies......................

17-19

Telegraph Companies........ ................................ ............... 20

Electric Utilities....................... .................... ..................... 20

Gas Utilities_____ __________________ ____ ________ 20

Transportation Utilities____________

20

Common Carriers--Railroads ........... ............................ .20-22

Express Companies____ ____

22

ANNUAL REPORT
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
A tlanta, Georgia, Dec. 1, 1034.
To H is E xcellency, G overnor E ugene T almadge: The Georgia Public Service Commission, in accordance with the requirem ents of law,
subm its herewith its 61st R eport covering the business and transactions of the Commission for th e year ending D ecem ber 31, 1933.
T he Commission, as a t present co nstituted, took th e o ath of office On Ju ly 21, 1933, and organized by selecting Honorable Jud P. W ilhoit as Chairm an and Honorable J. M. Forrester as Secretary.
I t was a m atter of common knowledge th a t the country as a whole was in the m idst of a business depression w ithout parallel within the experience of the present generation. The Government of the U nited States was entering upon the widest experim entation in an effort to relieve the distressing conditions. A large portion of our population was w ithout em ploym ent and means of supplying th e b arest necessities of life. T he purchasing power of the consuming public was practically gone and industry generally was in a state of well-nigh collapse and prostration.
Inform ation relating to the utility situation in Georgia indicated th a t the public was either abandoning or curtailing service with the result th a t most, if not all, the utilities faced diminishing incomes.
The Commission, mindful of its obligation as a regulatory body, and of the need for utility service of the best available standard, a t fair and reasonable rates, undertook comprehensive investigations of the rates, charges and services of the utility companies under its jurisdiction, which have n o t yet been concluded. There follows a resume of its accom plishm ents betw een th e d ate i t took office and th e end of th e calendar year.
UTILITY RATES T e le p h o n e
On A ugust 3, 1933, th e Commission issued its rule nisi to all telephone companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why all local and long distance rates on telephone service should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, be reduced a n d /o r eliminated.
T he investigation under th is rule nisi was begun on Septem ber 12, 1933, an d as th e investigation progressed, orders were issued reducing the monthly charge for hand set or french type telephones from fifty cents m onthly to fifteen cents effective October 20, 1933; an order elim inating all extra charges for desk set equipm ent effective October 20, 1933; an order reducing the installation charge for individual line service from three
1 .
t h e g e n e r a l lib r a r y
t h e UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ATHENS, GEORGIA

dollars to tw o dollars effective N ovem ber 1, 1933; a n order reducing th e extra exchange
line mileage charge from sixty-three cents to forty cents per m onth per quarter mile;
an d a general subscriber's sta tio n ra te order reducing subscriber statio n service effective
D ecem ber 1, 1933. T he reductions under th e general order were m ade upon local exchange
bases and am ounted to a reduction of approximately tw enty per cent to individual tele
phone subscribers. H ereinafter follow the opinions and orders of the Commission in the sequence named:
N um ber Docket 6-A
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
R E : T elephone Companies Operating
in the State of G eorgia
OPINION ON HAND SET EQUIPM ENT By T h e Com m ission
T he Commission on A ugust 3rd, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all telephone companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why telephone rates, both local and long distance, should not be reduced, and why extra charges should not be reduced or eliminated.
T he rule nisi was made returnable on Septem ber 12th, 1933, on which date hearings began. Answers were filed by a large m ajority of th e m ajor companies an d testim ony taken by the Commission pursuant to the rule nisi.
These hearings are still in progress on the general rate structures and miscellaneous charges.
On the hearings the companies assumed the burden of establishing the justness and reasonableness of rates and charges a t the present time, and under prevailing economic conditions.
The hearings on the general rate structure and miscellaneous charges have not been completed, and additional tim e will be required to complete th a t record and make a finding thereon. T he Commission, however, has had volum inous evidence, b o th Oral and documentary, produced before it by the companies relative to the additional rate charged by various companies for services in connection w ith th e h and set or F rench ty p e of telephone, and the record on this subject is sufficient to enable the Commission to de termine the justness and reasonableness of this extra charge.
I t has appeared on the hearings, th a t while the smaller companies have in use a lim ited num ber of th e hand set telephones, th e subscribers of th e Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter called the Bell Company) are the principal users of this type of telephone and the Bell Company alone has produced m aterial evidence in support of th e ex tra charge. I t is therefore a p p aren t th a t th e Commission m ust deal with this subject in the light of the evidence presented by the Bell Company, together w ith all the facts and circumstances as they appear to the Commission as bearing on the justness and reasonableness of such a charge.
The Bell Company and several of th e other companies make an extra charge of fifty cents per month for use of this type of equipm ent.
T he Bell C om pany's exhibit No. 37, pu rp o rts to show present costs, f. o. b. ware house, of types of equipm ent involved in this particular inquiry. Oral testim ony in support of this exhibit was given to the effect th a t there should be added to these costs eight per cent, for handling charges. Their exhibit No. 43, purports to show approxim ately the relative use of hand sets to other types of subscribers' station equipm ent in this State. T heir exhibit No. 16, purp o rts to show each item of ad ditional annual charges for h and sets as compared with desk stands.
The Company introduced oral testim ony by its accountants and experts in support of the exhibits enumerated, and further facts with reference thereto were developed on cross examination.
2

E xhibit No. 16 purp o rts to show th e additio n al annual charges for h an d sets as com pared with desk stands and was offered in justification of the present extra charge.
I t is claim ed by th e Bell C om pany th a t according to its books th ere is an additional investm ent of $5.32 in a h and set over a desk set. I t was developed, however, on cross exam ination, from th e Bell C om pany's record, th a t th e com parable actual present addi tional investm ent is $4.57.
E x hibit No. 16 is herew ith inserted w ith a parallel colum n showing th e com parable figures:

(Based on M anual Common B attery Stations Now in Plant)

Average Per Hand Set

Original Exhibit

Additional Column

(a) Additjonal Present Investment in Hand Set Over Desk Set Additional Present Cost in Hand Set Over Desk Set

$5.32

$4.57

Additional Annual Charges:

(b) Interest on Additional Investment at 8%

.43

.37

(c) Depreciation Expense ($14.70 x (5 minus $9.38 x 7%)

.67

.59

(d) Maintenance (present excess for hand set)

.54

.54

(e) Maintenance (future additional excess account of aging)

.20

.20

(f) Interest on Desk Set Junked

.45

.41

(g) Annual Service Loss and Cost Resulting from Junking of Desk

Set

.68

.60

(h) General Expenses

.09

.09

(i) Uncollectible Revenue (l.% x $6.00)

.06

.06

(j) Licensee Revenue--Dr. (1.5% x $5.94)

.09

.09

(k) Property Taxes

.08

.07

(l) Gross Receipts Tax

.01

.01

(m) State Income Tax

* .18

.18

(n) Federal Income Tax

.58

.59

Total Additional Annual Charges on Hand Sets

4.06

3.80

T he Bell Company subm its $4.57 as being the present excess cost of th e hand set over the desk set. Conceding this am ount to be correct present excess cost, the Com mission, from th e evidence before it, is of th e opinion t h a t th e difference in original in vestm ent will substantially diminish.
T he " additional annual charges" set fo rth in exhibit N o. 16 will now be analyzed item by item.
I tem b. The Company sets up under this item an interest ra te of eight per cent, on th e additional investm ent. I t appears from th e evidence th a t it is necessary for th e Company to carry in stock equipm ent am ounting to three per cent, of the equipm ent in service. The additional investm ent, therefore, am ounts to $4.71. The Commission thinks six per cent, an adequate ra te of interest to be charged under this item . The am ount allowed under this item is, therefore, found to be six per cent, or $4.71, am ounting to 28.3 cents.
I tem c. This item deals w ith depreciation expense. I t does not conclusively appear th a t the depreciation rate on the hand set should be greater than th a t on the desk set. We accept th e C om pany's estim ate of a seven per cent, depreciation ra te on desk sets as being reasonable, and apply the same rate to the hand set. The am ount allowed under th is item is, therefore, found to be seven per cent, or $4.57, am ounting to 32.0 cents.
I tem d. This item deals w ith excess cost of m aintenance. The Company has in troduced evidence of a very recent study of the average station tenure throughout its system. The report of the study indicated th a t on the average a telephone rem ains in one place approxim ately 3.J years. T he m aintenance item here set up is based on this turnover and on th e evidence is allowed a t 54.0 cents. We believe, however, th a t under more norm al conditions this period will be longer and m aintenance correspondingly reduced.
3

I tem e. T he claim here is for fu tu re excess m aintenance of h an d set on account of
aging. We regard this item as entirely speculative and w ithout evidence to support it, an d it is therefore n o t allowed.

I tem f. T his claim is for interest a t eight per cent, on desk set junked. To allow this item would be to conclusively presume th a t with the installation of every hand set a desk set. m ust be junked. The Commission cannot entertain this presumption, and th e evidence on this subject is th e contrary. T he evidence discloses th a t in th e p a st year 15,000 instrum ents of all kinds were junked, b u t no effort was made to show the relation betw een this junk in g an d th e use o f h and sets. This item is n o t allowed for th e reasons stated.
I tem g. The Company insists th a t it should be rem unerated for service still remaining in a desk set and lost by prem ature junking. E xhibit No. 43 shows th a t there are now in use in the S tate of Georgia 100,602 instrum ents of this general type (wall sets n o t included). I t is fu rth e r shown th a t of this num ber 11,113 are h an d sets, or 11.05 per cent, of the to tal. We are again called upon to presume th a t the installation of a hand set results in junking a desk set. For the reasons heretofore given we are not authorized to indulge this presumption. The record shows th a t the increase in demand for hand sets has grown rapidly and therefore tends to render obsolete any earlier and less desirable ty p e of instrum ent. Obsolescence is a factor necessarily entering into th e establishm ent of a depreciation reserve. W ithin its experience the Bell Company has seen the wall type instrum ent become relatively obsolete and supplanted by the desk type; and being under provident management the element of obsolescence m ust have been carefully considered in determining the rate to be applied in creating an adequate depreciation reserve. In additio n it is clearly shown by th e record th a t th e present norm al dem and for th e desk set is far in excess of such sets displaced by h an d sets. This item is n o t allowed as we do not think the evidence sufficient to support the claim.
v The am ounts allowed on the remaining items are m athem atically deducible from th e fu rth er conclusions of th e Commission and will appear in proper sequence.

T he following table shows the findings of the Commission on each item of addi tional annual charge set up in exhibit No. 16:

(a) Additional Present Cost over Desk Set (b) Interest on Additional Investment on $4.57 plus 3% @ 6% (c) Depreciation Expense 7% on $4.57 (d) Maintenance--as claimed (e) Future Additional Maintenance (f) Interest on Desk Set Junked (g) Service Loss on Junked Desk Set
15 (h) General Expense--9.0jS x --1--
50 (i) Uncollectibles--Loss 1% of___________ $1.80 (j) License Expense 1.5% on $1.80 minus 01.8
4.57 (k) Property____________________________ 8.0 x ---------
1.78 5.82 (l) Gross Receipts Tax__________.1.0 x ---------
5.94

.57 28.3^ 32.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2,7
1.8 2.7
6.9

,_ _

m

.

(m) State Income Tax 1.80 minus 1.287 plus 28.3 @ 4%

(n) Federal Income Tax .796 minus .032 @ 13.75%

Sub total

128.7 3.2 10.7

Total 142.6ji
The above finding of $1.43 by the Commission as the to tal additional annual charge for hand set over desk set requires the following comm ents:
On th e item of uncollectibles i t is n o ted th a t one per cent, would probably be an excessive percentage under norm al business conditions. The allowance for property ta x is based on 100 p e r cent, value while actu a lly tax es are assessed an d p aid on a much lower basis.
Incom e taxes are paid on net income and while we allow these items the Commission is n o t to be understood as com m itting itself to th e proposition th a t such taxes should be passed on to the subscriber.
4

T he item w ith respect to licensee revenue is allowed because it is presented for determ ination in this inquiry, however, the Commission does not commit itself to the justness and reasonableness of the percentage set up by the Bell Company insofar as it may relate to the general rate structure.
The Commission thinks the only justification for an additional charge for the French type or hand set telephone is to be found in the additional cost for providing th a t service.
The Commission does not agree th a t this type of telephone is a luxury, b u t regards it as a distinct im provem ent in the developm ent of telephone service, and one which the public is entitled to have a t reasonable cost.
Based upon the findings of the Commission, hereinabove set out, and after con sideration of all the evidence, facts and circumstances adduced and of record we are of th e opinion th a t a m onthly charge of fifteen cents as an additional charge for a hand set is ju s t and reasonable and provides adequate com pensation to all telephone companies operating in the State of Georgia for this additional service, and therefore an order should be m ade accordingly an d th a t O ctober 20th, 1933, be th e effective d ate hereof.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERV ICE COM MISSION, This the fifth

d a y ^ i O ctober, 1933.

J ud P. Wilhoit,

J. M. F orrester,

C hairm an,

Secretary.

ORDER O ctober 5, 1933.

TO ALL TELEPHO N E COM PANIES OPERATING IN TH E STATE OF GEORGIA:

You, and each of you, are hereby advised th a t th e Commission, Under its rule nisi issued A ugust 3, 1933, has considered th e ex tra charge for French ty p e or h and set tele phones and has directed th a t an order be entered effective October 20, 1933, allowing a charge of fifteen cents m onthly for such extra service, until further order of the Com mission.

I t is therefore ordered th a t each of you file tariffs w ith th e Commission in accordance V) therew ith, effective October 20, 1933.

BY ORDER OF GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

ORDER O ctober 6, 1933.

TO ALL TELEPHO N E COM PANIES OPERATING IN TH E STATE OF GEORGIA:

You, and each of you, are hereby advised th a t the Commission, under its rule nisi issued A ugust 3, 1933, has considered ex tra charges made by th e companies under its jurisdiction for the use of subscribers' station equipment. I t appears th a t some of th e telephone companies are making an extra charge for use of the desk set type of telephones, and th e Commission being of th e opinion th a t such charge is n o t justifiable, regarding as it does th a t th e desk set ty p e is sta n d a rd equipm ent, it is,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D : T h a t effective October 20, 1933, all extra charges for desk set type telephones by companies operating in Georgia, be, and the same are hereby elim inated, an d all com panies m aking such charges are directed to file tariffs in accordance
herew ith .

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilhoit, Chairm an.

OPINION ON INSTALLATION CHARGE,
By the Commission:
T he Commission on A ugust 3, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all telephone companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why telephone rates, both local and long distance, should not be reduced, and why extra charges should not be reduced or eliminated.
T he rule nisi was made returnable on Septem ber 12, 1933, on which d ate hearings began. Answers were filed by a large m ajority of th e m ajor companies and testim ony taken by the Commission pursuant to the rule nisi.
These hearings are still in progress on the general rate structures and miscellaneous charges.
On the hearings the companies assumed the burden of establishing the justness and reasonableness of rates and charges a t the present tim e and under prevailing economic conditions.
T he hearings on th e general ra te stru ctu re and miscellaneous charges have vv 'labjen com pleted, and additional tim e will be required to com plete th a t record an d m ake a finding thereon.
The Commission has had before it the representatives of many of the municipalities of th e State, together w ith telephone subscribers who testified as witnesses, protesting th e service connection charges, as well as th e prevailing ra te level. These witnesses were representative business men of the various localities and they have uniformly testified to the opinion th a t th e service connection, or in stallation charge, of $3.00 now in effect was retarding the return of old subscribers and the addition of new ones for telephone service. The Commission does not regard the telephone as an absolute necessity, generally speaking; however, its use is so common in th e business and social relations of th e people, and th e desire for it, when available a t reasonable rates, so general, th a t th e Commission feels th a t an encouraged use will not only be beneficial to th e public, b u t will increase the revenue of the Companies, accordingly w ith th e increased use.
From the evidence before us above referred to, the Commission feels th a t th e deure for such service on th e p a rt of th e public is in reality a dem and. I t fu rth e r feels th a t the obligation rests upon it to use the regulatory powers conferred upon it by law to see th a t th is dem and is m et in keeping w ith th e ability of th e public to pay ju s t and reasonable charges adequate to meet the expense incurred for each individual as and when he desires the benefits of the service.
T he initial connection charge of $3.00 is intended to cover th e cost of, (1) th e in stallation and connection of a " new u n it of service," an d (2) " la te r discontinuing th a t u n it of service." Evidence before th e Commission is th a t th e charge has been effective since M arch 1921 w ith o u t change an d th e tariffs on file in th e office of th e Commission verify the statem ent.
T he installation of a new u n it of service is of m utual benefit; th e Com pany gets a subscriber and th e subscriber th e service. The rem oval of th e u n it is of no benefit to th e Com pany and this cost is properly assignable to th e subscriber. E v id en ce before th e Commission is th a t actual physical installation and disconnection, including labor, m aterial and equipm ent, is a Capitalized Cost Charge. I t therefore appears th a t th e present service connection charge includes only non-capitalized cost, principally clerical.
I t appears a t this tim e th a t th e tren d is decidedly tow ard resum ption of connections an d addition of new subscribers, an d it is n o t unreasonable to assum e th a t th e service connection charge will have a bearing in accelerating or retard in g this trend. I t is also reasonable to conclude th a t as this tren d progresses disconnections will decrease, and therefore, th e tenure of statio n equipm ent in one locality will be lengthened. This con dition, in our opinion, will necessarily result in increased revenues to the Companies, restore to service idle equipm ent and increase the value of the service to the public w ithout material increase in operating costs.
6

The Commission has given due consideration to all of the evidence adduced on the hearing, both oral and documentary, and all the facts and circumstances incident to, or connected with, the service connection charge, and has reached the conclusion th a t th e record on this subject is now sufficient to enable th e Commission to determ ine a ju st and reasonable charge for this service.

F or th e reasons stated th e Commission is of th e opinion, and so finds, th a t th e present service connection charge of $3.00 for individual line, or p a rty line, m ain stations is not justified.

The Commission finds th a t a proper service connection charge for individual line, or p a rty line, main stations is th e sum of $2.00 which is adequate for this service, and th a t an order issue in accordance herew ith, effective N ovem ber 1, 1933.

T he Commission finds th a t it is ju s t and reasonable th a t a change of desk set or wall set equipm ent to hand set type equipm ent shall be deemed and considered as a service connection and the charge for service connection herein fixed shall apply.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PU BLIC SERV ICE COM M ISSION, This, th e 20th day of October, 1933.

J M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilh o it, C hairm an.

ORDER October 21, 1933.

TO ALL TELEPH O N E COMPANIES OPERATING IN TH E STATE OF GEORGIA:

You, and each of you, are hereby advised th a t the Commission, under its rule nisi issued A ugust 3, 1933, has considered th e service connection charge for individual line, and p arty line, main stations for a new unit of service, and has directed th a t an order be en tered effective N ovem ber 1, 1933, fixing said charge a t th e sum of $2.00; an d finding th a t a change of desk set or wall set equipm ent to hand set type equipm ent shall be deemed and considered as a service connection.

I t is therefore ordered th a t each of you file tariffs w ith th e Commission in accordance th erew ith , effective N ovem ber 1, 1933.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

Jud P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

OPINION ON EXTRA EXCHANGE LIN E MILEAGE CHARGE
By The Commission:
The Commission in the course of its investigation under the rule nisi in the telephone cases has had evidence before it, both oral and in the form of exhibits, relating to non revenue producing charges th a t affect the public.
These extra charges are n o t so in ter-related w ith each other or a general ra te structure as th a t they m ust be dealt w ith in a single general order, and it seems to the Commission th a t these m atters should be disposed of in a separate order.
An extra exchange line mileage charge is collected m onthly from those subscribers who reside beyond a base ra te area. A base ra te area is an area having arbitrarily estab lished boundaries within which the distance factor does not enter into the exchange tariffs, and wherein all subscribers pay a uniform rate.
7

Outside this area subscribers are required to pay a monthly charge oyer and above exchange tariffs, predicated upon distance from the boundary of the base rate area and measured in fractions of a mile. The Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company uses th e quarter mile u nit; other companies vary in the fractional unit. The m onthly charge increased proportionately with the unit distance from the boundary of the base rate area.

T he tariffs for th e several companies operating in Georgia v ary in am ount. This is
probably due to the fact th a t they have been established a t different times and under different conditions.

T he Bell Com pany is th e only com pany th a t has given detailed evidence in justifica tion of its u n it charge which is 63(i m onthly per q u a rte r mile for an individual line; p ro rated to 32f! an d 16j respectively for stations on two p a rty and four p a rty lines.

On this subject th e Bell Company introduced exhibit No. 64, as supplem ented by exhibit No. 107.

E xhibit No. 64 p u rp o rts to set up in d etail original costs and annual charges for th e construction and the operation of a typical line outside a base rate area.

T he set up of figures used by th e Bell C om pany in its exhibits Nos. 64 and 107 ap p aren tly fix th e extra Cost for service on which th e charge is based a t 64 fi per q u arter mile.

The Commission has checked the items set forth in these exhibits, and the evidence in the record as to prices of labor, material, etc., and as shown by the exhibit hereto attached, finds th a t th e actual cost for this extra exchange line mileage charge does not exceed 38j per q u arter mile per m onth.

T here are five companies operating in Georgia who have filed tariffs showing a mileage charge.

In the course of our investigation of this charge we have examined the comparable charges for this service in oth er sections, and we find th e Bell C om pany charge of 63j to be the highest of any as shown by available records.

After considering the evidence before the Commission, including the figures set forth in the exhibit hereto attached, and after a careful consideration of all of the per tin e n t facts before it on th is subject th e Commission is of th e opinion, an d so finds, th a t th e extra exchange line mileage charge ra te now in force is excessive, u n ju st an d un reasonable, and th a t th e said ex tra exchange line mileage charge ra te should be 40 per m onth per quarter mile, for individual line service, and prorated for two and four p a rty line service to 20j and lOji per m onth respectively, which ra te th e Commission finds to be reasonable ju st and com m ensurate with the cost of rendering said service and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the public, and th a t an order issue in accordance herew ith, effective December 1, 1933, directed to all companies operating in the State of Georgia.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM MISSION, This, the 17th day of N ovem ber, 1933.

J. M. F orrestek, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

ORDER
N ovem ber 17, 1933.
TO SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, BROOKLET TELEPH O N E COMPANY, BROOKLET Ge o r g ia , t h e d a l t o n t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y , d a l t o n , Ge o r g ia AND W ESTERN CAROLINA TELEPHO N E COMPANY, FRANKLIN, NORTH CAROLINA:
8

You, and each of you, are hereby advised th a t the Commission under its rule nisi issued A ugust 3, 1933, has considered th e e x tr a e x c h a n g e lin e m ile a g e c h a rg e , as shown by th e tariffs on file w ith th e Commission, and in effect in Georgia.

T he Commission finds th a t a reasonable an d ju s t charge for this service is 40ji per m onth per q u arter mile, for individual line service, prorated for two and four party line service to 20 and 10j per m onth respectively, which am ounts th e Commission finds com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering th e service an d w ith th e reasonable value of th e service to th e public.

I t is therefore ordered th a t each of you file tariffs w ith th e Commission in accordance therew ith, effective Decem ber 1, 1933.

BY O RDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud p> W il h o it , C hairm an.

OPINION GENERAL EXCHANGE RATES N ovem ber 17, 1933.
By The Commission:

T he Commission on A ugust 3, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all telephone companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why telephone rates, both local and long distance, should not be reduced and why extra charges should not be reduced a n d /o r elim inated. T he rule was m ade retu rn ab le on Septem ber 12, 1933, on
which d ate th e Commission commenced its investigation. Answers were filed by a large m ajority of the Companies and the hearings were continued from day to day lasting oyer a period of approxim ately six weeks. T he record m ade is volum inous, consisting of both oral and docum entary evidence.

The Commission dispatched to each of the telephone companies a questionnaire requesting information as to the name of the company, location of exchange and toll station, value of property, assessed taxable value, rates charged, annual income, annual expense and other information.

The investigation was general, covering all phases of telephone rates and charges in the S tate of Georgia as contem plated by the rule nisi.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence, facts and circumstances to gether w ith records and inform ation pertaining to th e subject m atter of th e rule nisi in its files, and upon such consideration th e Commission finds th a t th e rates and charges for telephone service by th e various companies now in force in this S tate are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t said rates and charges should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t reasonable rates and charges for said service by the various telephone companies furnishing same in this State should be as set forth in the exhibit attached hereto, which rates and charges it finds to be reasonable, just and comm ensurate with the cost of rendering said service and commensurate with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and th a t said rates and charges will afford adequate compensation to the companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herew ith issue to become effective D ecem ber 1, 1933.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERV ICE COM M ISSION, This, th e 17th day of N ovem ber, 1933.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilhoit, C hairm an,

9

ORDER N ovem ber 17, 1933.

TO ALL TELEPHO N E COMPANIES OPERATING IN TH E STATE OF GEORGIA:

You, and each of you, are hereby advised th a t th e Commission has on this date made its finding wherein it finds th a t th e schedule of rates and charges for telephone service in the State of Georgia now in force is unreasonable, unjust and excessive, and has further found th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, which said rates and charges as shown in said schedule have been found by the Commission to be reasonable, ju st and commensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service and commensurate with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and you are, therefore, ordered and directed to file tariffs w ith this Commission in accord ance therew ith, effective D ecember 1, 1933.

IT IS FU R T H E R O RD ERED : T h at nothing herein shall be construed as affecting
th e orders heretofore passed by th is Commission on O ctober 5, 1933, fixing th e ra te for hand sets or French type telephones, or the order of the Commission passed on October 6, 1933, m aking desk stands stan d ard telephone equipm ent, or th e order of th e Com mission passed on O ctober 21, 1933, fixing th e special installation charge and rem oval charge, or th e order of th e Commission passed on N ovem ber 17, 1933, fixing th e extra exchange line mileage charge, b u t all of said orders shall rem ain of full force and effect.

Subject to the further order of the Commission.

BY O RD ER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION, This, th e 17th day of N ovem ber, 1933.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

All the rates prescribed in these orders were p u t into effect by th e various telephone companies in th e S tate on Decem ber 1, 1933, except th e following companies which applied for and obtained injunctions against the orders in the D istrict C ourt of the U nited States for the N orthern D istrict of Georgia:
Georgia Continental Telephone Company Southeastern Telephone Company Central Telephone Company Douglas Telephone Company D alton Telephone Company Consolidated Telephone Company Chatsworth Telephone Company Statesboro Telephone Company Cairo Telephone Company Thomaston Telephone Company

RAILROAD
F reight R ates: The Commission found a generally unsettled and unsatisfactory condition as to class and commodity freight rates in trastate w ithin the State of Georgia. The prevailing rate level was substantially the same as th a t established during Federal control. The Commission further found th a t due to com petition brought about by m otor vehicle transportation, the rate structure had practically lost all uniformity because of the estab lishm ent of so-called tru ck com petitive rates. These rate s were also lacking in uniform ity in th a t some were point to point and some were comm odity rates, while still others were
10

based on mileage scale. In view of th is situation, th e Commission on A ugust 17, 1933, issued its rule nisi directed to all rail carriers in Georgia to show cause why class and commodity rates between points in Georgia, which were higher th an the rates of July 1, 1913, should n o t be reduced to th e rates in effect on Ju ly 1, 1913. T his rule nisi was later am ended on Septem ber 27, 1933, an d a scale of m axim um class rates was prescribed by the Commission and the carriers were required to show cause why this scale should not be p u t into effect for in trastate traffic by rail in Georgia. Investigation under this nisi was still in progress a t the end of th e year.
Passenger Fares: On application of the carriers in Southeastern territory the Interstate Commerce Commission granted permission for an experim ental rate of three cents per mile one way, in Pullm an cars; round trip for fifteen days a t two cents per mile, good in Pullm an cars, and one and one-half cents per mile one way, good in day coaches. This order of th e In te rsta te Commerce Commission was m ade effective Decem ber 1, 1933, in terstate, and was approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission for application intrastate within the State of Georgia. Regardless of the result of the experimental rates the Com mission will make its own investigation as to passenger rates.
T allulah Falls Railroad:
An application was filed with the In terstate Commerce Commission by the Receiver of the Tallulah Falls Railway Company for a certificate of convenience and necessity to abandon this railroad. The Commission made a thorough investigation of the situation as it related to this road and appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission in objection to such an order. These objections, however, were not sustained, and the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered the certificate granted. In this connection, however, it is interesting to relate th a t th e Federal Judge under whom th e receivership proceedings were pending has so far refused to pass an order of sale for this property. This we are advised is due to th e indication of increased earnings of th e railroad property.
ELECTRIC LIGHT.
On A ugust 30, 1933, th e Commission issued its rule nisi directed to all electric lig h t and power companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why the prevailing rates for domestic and commercial electric service should not be reduced and all extra charges for service, by w hatever name called, should not be reduced and/or eliminated. Investigations under this rule nisi were not concluded within the year. The following orders, however, were passed by the Commission in connection with electric rates to become effective as shown therein:
N um ber D ocket 54-A
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
R e : G en era l R ev isio n of all D omestic and C ommercial R ates in G eorgia.
O PIN IO N GEORGIA PO W ER CO. By The Commission:
T he Commission on A ugust 30, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all electric light and power companies operating under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Public Service
11

Commission to show cause why the prevailing rates for domestic and commercial electric service should not be reduced and all extra charges for service by whatsoever name they are called should not be reduced and/or eliminated.

The Georgia Power Company was notified to appear on November 7th, when it filed its answer and a hearing was commenced. D uring th e hearing th e Georgia Public Service Commission formulated a schedule of rates which it deemed to be fair, just and reasonable and comm ensurate w ith the cost of furnishing said service, and the Georgia Power Company agreed to accept said rates effective on bills rendered on meter readings made on or after Ja n u a ry 1, 1934, for consum ption of electric current wholly w ithin th e month of December.

The Commission having thus obtained its objective, an order will be passed directing the Georgia Power Com pany to file a complete schedule of rates in accordance w ith th e rates fixed as hereinabove set out and w ith the effective date as above set forth.

When the Georgia Power Company has complied with said order and has filed its schedule of rates in accordance therewith, an order will be passed by this Commission dissolving the rule nisi as to th a t company.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this 29th day of November, 1933.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W il h o it , C hairm an.

ORDER

DOM ESTIC SERVICE.

Nov. 29th, 1933.

TO THE GEORGIA POW ER COMPANY:

You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it finds th a t th e schedules of rates and charges for electric power for domestic consum ption now in force in the S tate of Georgia are unreasonable and excessive, and has further found th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance w ith the schedules hereto attached, said rates to become effective on bills rendered on meter readings made on or after January 1, 1934, for consum ption of electric current wholly w ithin th e m onth of December, subject to the further order of this Commission, and you are,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Com mission in accordance therewith.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. Wilhoit, C hairm an.

GEORGIA POW ER COMPANY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
S C H E D U L E " A-2 and A-3." (To replace present Schedule " A -l" )
1 1 5 // 230 Volts, Single. Phase A pplicability:
Applicable on the basis provided herein for all territory served by the existing dis tribution lines of the Company.
12

Residential lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration, and incidental power not to exceed 3 H. P. served through a single m eter in each individual residence, also hall and basement lights in apartm ent houses when served through a separate meter.

Any service used for commercial purposes such as central un it refrigeration systems
and other apartm ent house power, and dwellings accommodating more th an four paying guests will not be served under this schedule.

" I m m e d ia te " R a te "A -2"

F irst 25 K W H, per m onth....... ................................................... ....................7.22ff per K W H

N ext 35 K W H , per m onth..... ................................... ......... ......v.

5.55j per K W H

N ext 140 K W H, per m onth....... ............................ ............................... ...... 3.33jf per K W H

Over 200 K W H, per m onth.............................................................................. 1.67?f per K W H

"In d u c e m e n t" R a te "A-3"

F irst
Next Next N ext Over

15 K W H , or less, per m o n th $1.11
50 K W H, per m o n th.................. ........... :........................ ......................5.00ji per K W H 135 K W H, per m o n th.................... ............. ............................................ 2.22 ff per K W H 500 K W H, per m onth....... ...... .....................................................__ ___ 1.39^ per K W H 700 K W H , per m onth.... ................................. .................... ............... ...1,1 Iff p er K W H

A pplication o f R ate P la n : A base bill will be established for each customer for each m onth of the year in the
following manner:

(a) For present customers, the base bill will be th e kilow att-hour use for th e same m onth of th e year preceding th e d a te when th is ra te becomes effective, figured a t R ate A-2.

(b) For custom ers connected during th e 12 m onths preceding th e d ate when this ra te becomes effective, and for new custom ers th e ir first 12 m onths of m onthly use figured a t R ate " A-2" shall constitute th e base.

(c) W henever R ate A-2 results in a bill equal to or less th a n th e Base Bill, th e cus tom er will be billed on A-2.

(d) W henever R ate A-3 results in a bill greater th a n th e Base Bill, th e custom er will be billed on A-3.

(e) W henever R a te A-2 would give a bill greater th a n th e Base Bill and R a te A-3 would give a bill less th an the Base Bill, then the customer will be billed the Base Bill for th a t m onth. No bill on th e " Inducem ent" R a te can be less th a n th e Base Bill and no bill on R ate A-2 will be rendered for an am ount greater th a n th e Base Bill.

(f) E very custom er's base bill shall be reduced five per cent

a t the expiration

of th e 12 m onths ending Jan u ary 1, 1935, and th e re su lta n t base bill shall be reduced

an o th er five per cent (5%) a t th e expiration of 24 m onths, ending Jan u ary 1, 1936.

On and after Jan u a ry 1, 1937, th e " Inducem ent" R a te shall apply to every residential customer.

M inim um M onthly Charge: $1.11 (gross) per m onth.

Prom pt Paym ent D iscounts: All bills paid w ithin ten days from p resentation are subject to a discount of 10 per cent.

Contract Period: One year.

December 1, 1933.

OPINION SAVANNAH ELECTRIC & POW ER COMPANY

By The Commission:
The Commission on A ugust 30, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all electric light and power companies operating under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Public Service

13

Commission to show cause why the prevailing rates for domestic and electric service
should not be reduced, and all extra charges for service by whatsoever name they are called should not be reduced and/or eliminated.

The Savannah Electric & Power Company was notified to appear on November 7th, when it did appear, and was excused until further notified by the Commission for a hearing. Before a hearing was scheduled and after an informal investigation, the Georgia Public Service Commission form ulated a schedule of rates for domestic electric service, which was deemed to be fair, ju st and reasonable and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of furnishing said service, and the Savannah Electric & Power Company agreed to accept said rates effective on bills rendered on m eter readings m ade on or after Jan u ary 1, 1934, for consum ption of electric cu rren t wholly w ithin th e m onth of December 1933.
The Commission having th u s obtained its objective, an order will be passed directing the Savannah Electric & Power Com pany to file a complete schedule of rates in accordance w ith the rates fixed as hereinafter set out, and w ith th e effective date as above set forth.
The Savannah Electric & Power Company has complied w ith said order, and has filed its schedule of rates in accordance therew ith. Therefore, th e said rule nisi is hereby dissolved.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, This th e 20th day of December, 1933.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

ORDER

J xtd P . W il h o it , C hairm an.

DOM ESTIC SERVICE

December 20, 1933.
TO THE SAVANNAH ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein i t finds th a t th e schedules of rates and charges for electric power for domestic consumption now in force in the territory served by the Savannah Electric & Power Company, are unreasonable and excessive, and has further found th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance w ith th e schedules hereto attach ed , said rates to become effective on bills rendered on m eter readings made on or a fter Jan u a ry 1, 1934, for consum ption of electric current wholly w ithin th e m onth of December, subject to further order of this Com mission, and you are,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance therewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

SAVANNAH ELEC TRIC & POW ER CO.

RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
SCHEDULE " A"
A pplicability: Available to all residential customers served by the Company by its existing dis
tribution lines, except as otherwise provided herein.
For residential lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration and other small residential power, also hall and basement lighting in apartm ent houses when served through a separate meter.
14

Any service used for commercial purposes such as central unit refrigeration systems
and other apartm ent house power, and dwellings accommodating more than four paying guests will not be served under this schedule.

F irst Next Next Over

RATES 30 K W H , per month....... ........ 1_______ _______________________ 8.33(1 per K W H 30 K W H, per m onth..... ............................ ............................................7.22(i per K W H 140 K W H, per m onth____________ ________ _____ ____________ 3.33(5 per K W H 200 K W H , per m onth....... ........................................... .......................... __2.22ff per K W H

M inim um M onthly Charges $1.11 (gross) per m onth.

Prom pt P aym ent D iscount: All bills paid w ithin ten days from presentation are subject to a discount of 10 per cent.
C ontract Period: One year.

FOR SEASONAL RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AT SAVANNAH BEACH

T he abqve rates will apply plus 25% where service is rendered for less th a n th e contract period.

December 20, 1933, SAVANNAH ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
O ptional Off Peak W ater-H eating Rate.
Schedule A -l. Class o f Service
Any residential customer using electric water heating. Energy Charge
For th e first 30 K W H per m onth 2.22ff per K W H For all over 30 K W H per m onth 1.1 Iff per K W H M inim um Charge: $1.11 per m onth.
Prom pt P aym ent Discount: Above rate subject to 10% discount on all bills paid on or before 10 days after D ate of Bill.
The w ater heater service shall be supplied through a separate meter and no other appliance shall be connected to this meter.
L im itations
A. W ater H e a tin g E q u ip m e n t. , T his ra te is lim ited to a tw o-unit type of w ater heater, of construction approved by the Company. Each unit shall be non-inductive and shall be controlled by a separate therm ostat. The upper unit and therm ostat are located J of tank capacity below the top of tank; the lower u n it and therm ostat near the bottom of tank.
Per gallon of tan k capacity, the connected load shall be as follows:
P lain ty p e w ater heaters: Lower u n it approxim ately 20 w atts; upper unit, 30 w atts.
W ater heaters of special construction to deliver hot water to top of tank with minimum mixing; Low er u n it approxim ately 25 w atts; upper unit, 50 w atts.
The equipment shall be such th a t the capacity of the heating units connected at any one time shall not exceed the connected load of the upper unit.
15

B. H ours of Use. T he lower u n it only is controlled by a tim e switch restricting th e use of c u rre n t for
th is u n it to hours 9:00 A. M. to 11:30 A. M .; 2:00 P. M. to 5:30 P. M .; a n d 9:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M .; a n d /o r such other hours as th e Com pany m ay specify. (The to ta l hours of use m ay not be less th a n 15 per day).
December 20, 1933. The orders with reference to electric light service shown above include only domestic or residential service. The effect of these orders will not become known for som e tim e a s th ey begin with m eter readings as of Jan u ary 1, 1934. An investigation of th e Georgia Power & Light Company which serves the Southern portion of the State was under way a t th e end of the year, as well as other small companies.
MOTOR TRANSPORTATION. The Commission has administered the motor vehicle laws in the in terest of the general public to as great an extent as possible. In view of th e com petitive situation between motor carriers for hire and other forms of transportation, a thorough study of this form of transportation and its rates and services seems to be dem anded.
CONCLUSION. Studies made by th e Commission over th e period ending December 31, 1933, indicate th a t the general level of all utility rates in Georgia has remained unchanged over a long p erio d of years. A pparently there has been little, if any, effort on th e p a rt of th e utilities to reduce rates in keeping with the general fall in commodity prices which the consumer has experienced. Service to the public a t reasonable rates, has, and will be, th e objective of t he Georgia Public Service Commission.
Respectfully Submitted, J ttd P. W ilhoxt, C hairm an. Geo. L. G oode T hos. K . D avis J. B. D a niel B en T . H uiet
16

PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES Telephone Companies: Andersonville Telephone Company, B. O. Holloway, Andersonville, Georgia. Arnold, N. D. Telephone Company, H. H. Hardin, Pres., Forsyth, Georgia. Bartow Telephone Company, Mrs. Ella D. Archer, Owner, Bartow, Georgia. Blakeley Telephone Company, Mrs. Mattie Powell, Pres. & Gen. Mgr., Blakeley, Georgia. Bowman Telephone Company, A. G. Brown, Owner, Bowman, Georgia. Brooklet Telephone Company, J. L. Matthews, Mgr., Statesboro, Georgia. Broxton Telephone Company, W. M. King, Owner, Broxton, Georgia. Bntler Telephone Company, (Public Service Tel. Co.) Mrs. Bessie Bond, Owner, 617 West Adams St., Macon, Georgia. Byron Telephone Company, O. B. Lineburger, Owner, Byron, Georgia. . Cairo Telephone Company, J. W. Southall, Owner Cairo, Georgia. Canton Telephone Company, A. A. Fincher, Gen. Mgr. Canton, Georgia. Central Telephone Company of Ga., W. E. Glisson,' Gen. Mgr., 215 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Fla. Chatsworth Telephone Company, J. L. Kirk, Pres., Moultrie, Georgia. Chester Telephone Company, W. H. Floyd, Sr. Mgr.. Chester, Georgia. Chickamauga Telephone Company, A. E. Yates, Owner, Flintstone, Georgia. Clermont Telephone Company, Miss Hattie Chandler, Owner, Clermont, Georgia. Climax Telephone Company, Ben Wright, Owner,Whigham, Georgia.

Collins Telephone Company, U. S. Williams, Owner, Pembroke, Georgia.
Commerce Telephone Company, W. A. Echols, Mgr.,_ Commerce, Georgia.
Consolidated Telephone Company, J. L. Kirk, Pres., Moultrie, Georgia.
Crawfordville Telephone Company, J. C. Rhodes, Owner, Crawfordville, Georgia.
Culloden Telephone Company, (Public Service Tel. Co.)
Mrs. Bessie Bond, Owner, 617 West Adams St., Macon, Georgia.
Dahlonega Telephone Company, R. C. Meaders, Owner, Dahlonega, Georgia.
Dalton Telephone Company, J. L. Kirk, Pres., Moultrie, Georgia.
Danielsville & Comer Tel. Co., Gerald Birchmore, Mgr., Comer, Georgia.
Danville Telephone Company, W. G. Spears, Owner &Mgr.( Jeffersonville, Ga.
Darien Telephone Company, Mrs. Mary Jackson Collier, Owner, Odum, Georgia.
Davisboro Telephone Company, Mrs. J; E. Woodbury, Owner, Davisboro, Georgia.
Denton Telephone Company, Dr. E. A. Lambert, Owner, Denton, Georgia.
Dixie Telephone Company, C. L. Crawley, Owner, Milner, Georgia.
Doles Telephone Company, W. R. Spillers & K. R. Giddens, Mgrs., Doles, Georgia.
Douglas Telephone Company, J. L. Kirk, Pres., Moultrie, Georgia.
Dudley Telephone Company, F. Cannon, Owner, Dudley, Georgia.
Duluth Telephone Company, J. S. Brown, Owner, Duluth, Georgia.
Effingham Realty & Investment Co., Geo W. Fetzer, Jr., Pres. & Gen. Mgr., 16--18 Commercial Building, Savannah, Georgia.
17

Empire Telephone Company, Mrs. E. O. Ethridge, Mgr., Empire, Georgia.
Fairmount Telephone Company, H. D. Lacey, Owner, Fairmount, Georgia.
Farmers Telephone Company, It. K. Rahn, Mgr., Springfield, Georgia.
Farmers Telephone Exchange, J. R. Redfern, Owner, Warthen, Georgia.
Gay, E. C. Telephone Company, E. C. Gay, Owner, Matthews, Georgia.
Georgia Continental Telephone Co., W. O. Randall, Gen. Mgr., Sumter, S. C.
Georgia Telephone Company, Herbert C. Tinker, Pres. & Gen. Mgr., Hiawassee, Georgia.
Glennville Telephone Company,' C- R. Sikes, Owner, Glennville, Georgia.
Glenwood Telephone Company, C. R. Stanford, Owner, Glenwood, Georgia.
Gordon Telephone Company, Mrs. J. J. Brooks, Gordon, Georgia.
Gray Telephone Company, C. S. Bryant, Owner, Gray, Georgia.
Haddock Telephone Company, D. T. Haddock Owner, Haddock, Georgia.
Hampton Telephone Company, H. M. Barnett, Owner, Hampton, Georgia.
Harlem Telephone Company, W. F. Hardy, Owner & Mgr., Harlem, Georgia.
Hart County Telephone Company, F. P. Linder, Mgr.,' Hartwell, Georgia.
Hawkinsville Telephone Company, W. A. Jennings, Pres. & Gen. Mgr., Hawkinsville, Ga.
Hepzibah Telephone Company, fi. L.Murphy, Owner, Hepzibah, Ga.,
Hinesville Telephone Company, B. Parker, Mgr., Ludowici, Georgia.
Hiram Telephone Company, Mrs; Nellie Shipp, Mgr., Hiram, Georgia.
Homerville Telephone Company, W. E. Musgrove & R. E. Wilson, Mgrs., Homerville, Georgia.

Hoschton Telephone Company, Judge R. B. Russell, Sr.,JPres., Braselton, Georgia.
Ideal Telephone Company, J. R. Weeks, Owner, Ideal, Georgia.
Interstate Telephone Company, J. Smith Lanier, Pres., West Point, Georgia.
Interstate Telephone Company, T. J. Barrow, Owner, Attapulgus, Georgia.
Jasper Telephone Company, A. A. Fincher, Owner, Canton, Georgia.
Jeffersonville Telephone Company, W. G. Spears, Owner, Jeffersonville, Georgia.
Kennedy Telephone System, Jerome Kennedy, Owner, Dexter, Georgia.
Kite Telephone Company, J. M. Neal, Mgr.` Kite, Georgia.
Lenox Telephone Company, J. F. Brady, Mgr., Lenox, Georgia.
Leslie--DeSoto Telephone Company, E. R. Jordan, Mgr., Ellaville, Georgia.
Ludowici Telephone Company, Mrs. Katie Parker, Owner, Ludowici, Georgia.
Luthersville Telephone Company, F. M. Bryant, Gen. Mgr., Luthersville, Georgia.
Macon County Telephone Company, Mrs. Nellie C. Henderson, Owner, Oglethorpe, Georgia.
Madison Telephone Company, L. C. Seagrove, Route No. 1, Hull, Georgia.
Midville Telephone Company, Mrs. Sallie Tersons, Owner, Midville, Georgia.
Milledgeville Telephone & Telegraph Co., J. T. King, Sr. Mgr., Milledgeville, Georgia.
Mutual Telephone Company, James S. Peters, Manchester, Georgia.
Nelson--Ball Ground Telephone Co., J. H. Cook, Owner, Ball Ground, Georgia.
Newton Telephone Company, R. J. Griffin, Mgr., Newton, Georgia.
Oconee Telephone Company, W. T. Brightwell, Maxeys, Georgia.
18

Odum Telephone Company, C. Moody, Owner, Odum, Georgia.
Omega Telephone Company, C. J. Swain, Mgr., Omega, Georgia.
Parker Telephone Company, L. Parker, Owner, Folkston, Georgia.
Pearley Telephone Company, C. R. Stanford, Owner, Glenwood, Georgia.
Pembroke Telephone Company, U. S. Williams, Owner, Pembroke, Georgia.
Pinehurst Telephone Company, Mrs. J. W. Broxton, Owner, Unadilla, Georgia.
Plains Telephone Company, A. C. Murray, Owner, Plains, Georgia.
Reynolds Telephone Company, (Public Service Tel. Co.)
Mrs. Bessie Bond, Owner, 617 West Adams Street, Macon, Georgia.
Ringgold Telephone Company, J. E. Evitt, Owner, Ringgold, Georgia.
Roberta Telephone Company, (Public Service Telephone Co.)
Mrs. Bessie Bond, Owner, 617 West Adams Street, Macon, Georgia.
Sandy Cross Telephone Company, Mrs. F. C. Stevens, Route No. 1, Carlton, Georgia.
Savannah Valley Telephone Company, Geo. D. Perry, Receiver, Savannah, Georgia.
St. Marys & Kingsland Telephone Co., J. F. Bailey, Jr., Mgr., St. Marys, Georgia.
Seminold Telephone Company, E. R. Jordan, Owner, Ellaville, Georgia.
Simpson Telephone Company, William Simpson, Owner, Trenton, Georgia.
Soperton Telephone Company, 0 . M. Denton, M^r., Soperton, Georgia.
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., T. Barton Baird, Georgia Manager, Atlanta, Georgia.
Southeastern Telephone Company of Ga., W. E. Glisson, Gen. Mgr., 215 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida.
Standard Telephone Company, M. C. York, Manager, Clarksville, Georgia.

Statesboro Telephone Company, J. L. Mathews, Pres., Statesboro, Georgia.
Tarrytown Telephone Company, C. W. Beckworth, Mgr., Tarrytown, Georgia.
Taylorsville Telephone Company, G. O. Lumpkin, Owner, Taylorsville, Georgia.
Telephone Service Company, H. A. Chichester, Receiver, Summerville, Georgia.
Thomaston Telephone & Telegraph Company, W. M. New, Pres., Thomaston, Georgia.
Toccoa Electric Power Company, (Tel. Division) J. C, Guild, Jr., Pres., Power Building, Chattanooga, Tenn.
The Trion Company, J. E. Elliott, Trion, Georgia.
Union Point Telephone Company, J. H. Darby, Mgr., White Plains, Georgia.
Utelwico Telephone Company, C. L. Battle, Pres., Ellaville, Georgia.
Vienna Telephone Company, . W. M. Turton, Mgr. & Owner, Vienna, Georgia.
Walker County Telephone Co., W. C. Burney, Pres.,' LaFayette, Georgia. Warwick Telephone Company, H. P. Gleaton, Owner, Warwick, Georgia.
Waverly Hall Telephone Company, Geo. T. Whisnant, Mgr., Waverly Hall, Georgia.
Wayne Telephone Company, Mrs. Mary Jackson Collier, Owner, Odum, Georgia.
Wayne Telephone Company, Mrs. Mary Jackson Collier, Owner, Screven, Georgia.
Western Carolina Telephone Company, G. J. Johnston, Mgr., Franklin, N. C.
Whigham Telephone Company, Ben Wright, Owner, Whigham, Georgia.
White Plains Telephone. Company, J. H. Darby, Mgr., White Plains, Georgia.
Wilkes Telephone Company, 0 . S. Dyson, Mgr., Washington, Georgia.
Yatesville Telephone Company, J. J. Fincher, Mgr., Yatesville, Georgia.
19

Telegraph Companies:
Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, Charles R. Rimpo, Asst. Treas., 67 Broad St., New York, N. Y.
Western Union Telegraph Company, H. W. Ladd, Gen. Auditor, 195 Broadway, New York, N. Y.
Electric Utilities: Blairsville Electric Company, H. T. Patterson, Pres., Healey Building, Atlanta, Ga. Coastal Public Service Company, Guyton Newington Springfield Mr. R. A. Easterling, Guyton, Georgia. Georgia Power Company, Statewide System, Mr. Preston S. Arkwright, Pres., Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Power & Light Company, System in Southern part of Georgia, Mr. R. H. Ferguson, President, Valdosta, Georgia. Georgia Public Utilities Corp., St. Marys Plant Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia. Hiawassee River Power Corp., Mr. H. C. Tinker, President, Hiawassee, Georgia. Sardis Light Company, Mr. Geo. D. Perry, Receiver, Sardis, Georgia. Savannah Electric & Power Company, Mr. H. C. Foss, President, Savannah, Georgia. Toccoa Electric Power Company, System in Northern part of Georgia, Mr. J. C. Guild. Jr. Pres., Chattanooga, Tenn. Toccoa Falls Light & Power Co., Mr. E. P. Simpson, Pres., Toccoa, Ga.
Gas Utilities: Atlanta Gas Light Company, Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia. Consumers Gas & Coke Company, Way cross Mr. W, W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia Natural Gas Corp., Barnesville Calhoun Carrollton Cedartown Forsyth Milledgeville Newnan Rockmart Thomaston Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia.

Georgia Power Company, Americus Plant Gas Light Company of Columbus
Mr. Preston S. Arkwright, President Atlanta, Georgia.
Georgia Public Utilities Company, Augusta Plant Griffin Plant Rome Plant
Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia.
Georgia Public Utilities Corp., Athens Plant Brunswick Plant
Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia.
Macon Gas Company, Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia.
Savannah Gas Company, Mr. J. A. P. Crisfield, President, Savannah, Ga.
Valdosta Gas Company, Mr. W. W. Winter, Vice President, Atlanta, Georgia.
Transportation. U tilities: Georgia Power Company, All Subsdiaries Mr. Preston S. Arkwright, President, Atlanta, Georgia. Savannah Electric & Power Company, Electric Railway & Buses Mr. H. C. Foss, President Savannah, Georgia. Toccoa Electric Power Company, Electric Railway Mr. J. C. Guild, Jr., President, Chattanooga, Tenn.
COMMON CARRIERS UTILITIES Railroads: Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. (The) T. H. Seay, Comptroller, Washington, D, C. Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast R. R. Co., A. D. Daniel, Auditor, Atlanta, Georgia. Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co., W. H. Vincent, Comptroller, Atlanta, Georgia. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, W. D. McCaig, Comptroller, Wilmington, N. C. Bowdon Railway, Mrs. J. L. Lovvorn, President, Bowdon, Ga. Central of Georgia Railway Company, W. B. McKinstry, Comptroller, Savannah, Ga. Charleston & Western Carolina^ Rwy. Co., W. D. McCaig, General Auditor, . Wilmington, N. C.
20

Chattahoochee Valley Railway Company, Frederick Hewey, Treasurer, West Point, Georgia.

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co., G. F. Burkhardt, Auditor, Misc. Accts., Nashville, Tenn.

Collins & Glennville Railroad Company, J. D. Bradley, President, Glennville, Ga.

St. Marys Railroad, P. N. Holst, Auditor, Savannah, Ga.

Elberton & Eastern Railroad Company, W. H. Vincent, Auditor, Atlanta, Ga.
Flint River & Northeastern R.R. Co., I. C. Johnson, Auditor, Moultrie, Ga.

Sandersville Railroad Company, B. J. Tarbutton, General Manager,
Sandersville, Ga. Savannah & Atlanta Railway,
J. L. Strong, Auditor & Treasurer, Savannah, Ga.

Gainesville & Northwestern R.R. Co. (The) F. P. Lockhart, Auditor, Gainesville, Ga.

Savannah & Statesboro Railway Co., H. W. Purvis, Receiver, Augusta, Ga.

Gainesville Midland Railway, G. H. Purvis, Auditor Gainesville, Ga.

Seaboard Air Line Railway, L. L. Enight, Auditor, Portsmouth, Va.

Georgia & Florida Railroad, L. O. Todd, Auditor for Receivers, Augusta, Georgia.

Shearwood Railroad, H. M. Robertson, Jr. Vice-Pres. & Gen. Mgr, Brooklet, Ga.

Georgia, Ashburn, Sylvester & Camilla Ry. Co., I. C. Johnson, Auditor, Moultrie, Ga.

South Georgia Railway Co., (The) C. F. Carter, Auditor, Quitman, Ga.

Georgia Northern Railway Company, I. C. Johnson, Auditor, Moultrie, Ga.

Southern Railway Company, T. H. Seay, Comptroller, Washington, D. C.

Georgia Railroad, W. H. Vincent, Comptroller,. Atlanta, Ga.

Statesboro Northern Railway, H. W. Purvis, President, Augusta, Ga.

Georgia, Southern & Florida Railway Co., T. H. Seay, Comptroller, Washington, D. C.
Georgia Southwestern & Gulf R. R. Co., J. H. Conley, Auditor, Albany, Georgia,

Sylvania Central Railway Co., M. F. Harden, Auditor, Savannah, Ga.
Talbotton Railway Company, B. E. Persons, Gen. Mgr., Talbotton, Ga.

Greene County Railroad Co., A. H. Wilson, Auditor Monroe, Ga.

Tallulah Falls Railway Co., H. L. Brewer, Auditor, Cornelia, Ga.

Hartwell Railway Company, L. N. Adams, Auditor Hartwell, Ga.
Lakeland Railway, G. C. Dougherty, Traffic Mgr., Valdosta, Ga.

Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia Railway, D. E. Hedges, Comptroller, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Wadley Southern Railway, M. F. Harden, Auditor, Savannah, Ga.

Lithonia & Arabia Mtn. Railway, S. H. Venable, Pres., Atlanta, Ga.

Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad Co., M. F. Harden, Auditor, Savannah, Ga.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, A. J. Pharr, Comptroller, Louisville, Ey.

Western & Atlantic Railroad, G. F. Burkhardt, Auditor of Misc. Accts,
Nashville, Tenn.

Louisville & Wadley Railroad Company, W. B. McEinstry,'Auditor, Savannah, Ga.
Macon, Dublin & Savannah R.R. Co. L. L. Enight, General Auditor, Portsmouth, Va.

Terminal Companies Atlanta Terminal Company, Mr. E. C. Becker, Auditor, Atlanta, Ga. Augusta & Summerville Railroad, J. J. O'Shea, Auditor, Augusta, Ga.

Milstead Railroad Company, J. E . Boatwright, Secty.-Treas.,
LaGrange, Ga.

Augusta Union Station (The) L J. O'Shea, Auditor, Augusta, Ga.
21

Georgia Midland Terminal Company. T. H. Seay, Comptroller, Washington, D. C.
Savannah River Terminal, J. J. O'Shea, Auditor Augusta, Ga.
[ Savannah Union Station Company, la. T. H. Seay, Comptroller, It Washington, D. C.

Express Companies Railway Express Agency, Inc. J. F. Brizzie, Gen. Aud., Chattanooga, Tenn. Southeastern Express Company, Mr. J. E. O'Keefe, Auditor, 50 Pryor St., Atlanta, Ga.

22

62nd ANNUAL REPORT 1934
OF
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS JUD P. W ILHOIT, Chairman GEO. L. GOODE THOS. K. DAVIS BEN T. HUIET J. B. DANIEL JACK M. FORRESTER, Secretary
1935 STEIN PRINTING COMPANY
STATE PRINTERS ATLANTA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages Letter of Transmittal............................... _................ mJ ........ - ................. 1-12 Electric Orders and Rates____ ____ *.......... _................-........................ 13-23 Motor Carrier Orders and Rates............ __....... ...................................... --- 23-29 Passenger Order and Rates.________................................... ........................ 29-33 Gas Orders and Rates__________ ___________________________ _____ 33-54 Class Rate Order.......................... ......................... ......................--- .......... 54-65 General Revision of Class and Commodity R ates............................ ........ 63-89 Naval Stores.................. ........._........ ...................................................------ 90 Petroleum and Petroleum Products------------ -------------- ------------------- 91-95

ANNUAL REPORT
L etter of T ransm ittal
A tla n ta , Georgia, Jan u ary 10, 1935.
To His Excellency, Governor Eugene Talmadge:
The Georgia Public Service Commission, in accordance w ith the requirem ents of law, subm its herewith its 62nd R eport covering the business and transactions of the Commission for th e year ending Decem ber 31, 1934.
As stated in our last report, the Commission had entered upon a comprehensive investigation of utility rates in the S tate of Georgia. This investigation had not been concluded a t th e end of th e y ear 1933. H earings were resum ed early in 1934 and orders were issued from tim e to tim e throughout th e year as records were completed. We deem it unnecessary to recite th e conditions developed on these hearings w ith respect to the various utilities serving the public in Georgia. The opinions and orders of the Com mission published in this report are sufficiently full and clear as to tne reasons moving the Commission in its general orders which have had the effect of substantially reducing all public utility rates to be paid by the consuming public of this State.
UTILITY RATES
T elephone
T here has been no change in local exchange rates during th e year 1934, except in the rates of those companies mentioned in our form er report which applied for and ob tained injunctions against th e general ra te order of N ovem ber 16, 1933. T he Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company applied for an injunction, which was heard on December 11, 1933, before a three-judge Federal C ourt. On Jan u a ry 2, 1934, th is C ourt handed down an opinion refusing th e application for tem porary injunction of th e Bell Com pany. This case is pending in th e D istric t C o u rt of th e U hited S tates for N orthern D istrict of Georgia in the same status as of Jan u ary 2, 1934; and in the meantim e the rate reductions ordered by the Commission are in effect over the territory served by the Bell Company. The Commission has not received the annual report of the Bell Com pany for the year 1934 and is therefore unable to determ ine th e effect of th e order on the revenues of th e Company; however, the Commission has inform ation to the effect th a t whereas th ere was a general decline in telephone exchange service in th e year 1933, there has been a steady increase th ro u g h o u t th e y ear 1934 indicating th a t lower rates are bringing in new, and restoring form er subscribers.
The companies which obtained injunction's have put into effect the orders of the Commission except on exchange subscriber stations, and have filed tariffs w ith the Com mission on exchange subscribers stations lower th a n those prevailing when the rule nisi was issued, b u t somewhat higher th an those prescribed by the Commission.
1

The Commission therefore reports th at there has been a general State-wide reduction for telephone service in the S tate of Georgia. The am ount of this reduction to the public using telephone service a t th e end of th e year 1934 is conservatively estim ated a t n o t less th a n $1,000,000.
RAILROADS
F reig h t R ates:
The investigation of the Commission into the freight rate structure was thorough and exhaustive, insofar as the facilities of the Commission would perm it. Class and commodity rates as found by the Commission a t the tim e of the investigation may be divided into two levels; th e pre-w ar level, th a t is, th e rates prevailing prior to th e period of Federal control; and the level established during Federal control.
On June 25, 1918, th e D irector G eneral of R ailroads ordered an increase of tw entyfive per cent in general class rates and again on Septem ber 1, 1920 an additio n al increase of twenty-five per cent was granted. These increases grew out of the general increase in all prices which prevailed in th a t period. D uring th e years 1921 and 1922 th e general level of commodity prices declined and this general decline was recognized to the extent of a general order reducing rates ten per cent, which became effective Ju ly 1, 1922. W ith minor adjustm ents this level of rates prevailed u n til Ja n u a ry 1928 a t which tim e an order of the In te rsta te Commerce Commission in th e Southern Class R ate Investigation (I. C. C. D ocket 13,494) became effective on Georgia in tra sta te traffic under an order of the Georgia Public Service Commission made in conform ity to the order of the Inter state Commerce Commission. As to th e general effect of th e order in th e Southern Class R ate Investigation, a member of the In terstate Commerce Commission, in Docket 26,000, made this comm ent:
" The Southern Class R ate Investigation theoretically left the class rate level unchanged; in effect it perm itted the withdrawal of many lower rates and thus worked a real increase."
The Georgia Public Service Commission found th a t the prevailing level of rates in Georgia a t the time of the investigation was approxim ately forty per cent higher than the pre-war level. The Commission in the same connection found th a t the pur chasing power of the public and the ability to pay for this class of service had receded alm ost to the vanishing point, and considering changed conditions might well be said to be below the pre-war level.
The increase in the level of freight rates on the one hand and the general decrease in the ability of the public to m arket its commodities a t a fair value on th e other hand, resulted in bringing about a disparity between the cost of transportation and the means and ability of th e users of tran sp o rtatio n to pay which was so m arked as to raise a strong presumption th a t transportation rates were too high and should be brought down within the reach of the shipping public.
W ith the records made in this investigation, the Commission passed orders and prescribed rate reductions in general class rates w ithin the States of Georgia; fertilizer and fertilizer materials; sand and gravel; cotton; cottonseed; petroleum and petroleum products and naval stores. Of these orders, all were in effect and in operation in Georgia a t th e end of th e year 1934 except th e reduction in rates on fertilizer and sand and gravel,
2

which reductions were enjoined by the Federal Court. The opinions and orders in effect appear in this report as p a rt of Appendix " A" .
Passenger R ates:
On Jan u ary 12, 1934, th e Commission issued a rule nisi requiring th e carriers to show cause on F ebruary 13, 1934, w hy all passenger fares in Pullm an cars and/day coaches, which were the prevailing maximum fares, should not be reduced. The Commission conducted hearings which term in ated on M arch 15, 1934 on th is subject. A t th e con clusion of the hearing the Commission passed an order prescribing a maximum passenger fare rate of two cents per mile in trastate in Georgia; this fare to apply to all carriers in Georgia and to all classes of equipm ent. This order had the effect of abolishing the Pullm an surcharge in effect by the rail carriers and reduced the maximum fares in Pullman cars to two cents per mile on all trains in trastate in Georgia. The order did not revoke the authority granted to the carriers to continue the experimental rate of one and onehalf cents per mile in day coaches. A copy of th e opinion and order in this m atter appears in this report as a p art of Appendix " A" .
The rail carriers made this order the subject of a T hirteenth Section case under the Interstate Commerce Act before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Hearings have been had before the In terstate Commerce Commission, but no decision has been made. I t is interesting to note in this connection th a t th e In te rsta te Commerce Com mission is conducting on its own m otion an investigation of th e general passenger ra te structure throughout th e U nited States and it is an ticip ated th a t th e Georgia case will be decided along with the general passenger rate investigation.
In te rsta te C om m erce C om m ission:
Under the law, the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power to consider and revise all in trastate rates, both freight and passenger, prescribed by State Com missions to determine whether such rates are discrim inatory or constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce. These powers are vested by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Commission under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.
In addition to the passenger-rate case, the carriers have carried to the Interstate Commerce Commission the class rate order, the petroleum order, and the naval stores order. The rates, however, will rem ain in effect until these cases are decided by th e Interstate Commerce Commission.
The Commission is also defending before the In terstate Commerce Commission th e case brought by th e Jacksonville C ham ber of Commerce in which it is claimed th a t certain intrastate rates applicable in the State of Georgia are discrim inatory against certain shippers located in the State of Florida, principally in the City of Jacksonville.
ELECTRIC LIGHT
The Commission, a t th e end of th e y ear 1933, had passed tw o orders affecting electric light rates. These reduced the rates of the Georgia Power Company and the Savannah Electric & Power Company for domestic consum ption only and went into effect on Jan uary 1, 1934. An additional revision dow nw ard was ordered in th e rates of th e Savannah Electric and Power Com pany effective M arch 1, 1934. A copy of th e opinion an d order in this m atter appears in this report as a p art of Appendix " A" .
3

The Commission, after an investigation of the rates of the Georgia Power & Light Company which serves a large area in the Southern p a rt of th e State, prescribed the same rates for this company as those for the Georgia Power Company and the Savannah E lectric & Power C om patiy. This com pany resorted to th e F ederal C ourt a,nd an in junction was granted restraining the Commission from putting into effect this scale of rates for the Georgia Power & Light C om pany. Subsequent to the passage of the Johnson Bill, the Commission again had hearings on th e Georgia Power & Light Com pany and issued an order prescribing a scale of rates som ewhat higher th an the Georgia Power Company and the Savannah Electric & Power Company rates, but materially lower th an th e prevailing rates a t th e tim e th e Commission begun its investigation of thip Com pany. The Power Company, under the provisions]of the Johnson Act, applied to the Superior Court of Fulton County for an injunction, which, after thorough hearing, th e C ourt refused. T he Power Company dismissed its bill and th e rates prescribed for the Georgia Power & Light Company are now in effect. A copy of the opinion and order in this m atter appears in this report as a p art of Appendix " A" .
The investigation under the rule nisi of th e Commission provided for an investiga tion of rates for commercial light and power, w hich have been upon a different scale and basis to th a t for domestic or residential service. Orders were passed providing for sub stantial reductions to users of this class of electric service, which appear in this report as a p a rt of Appendix " A" .
U nder a rule nisi issued on N ovem ber 24, 1934, th e Commission now has before it further investigation of the rates for commercial light and power service. The Com mission has called upon all companies supplying this service to furnish it w ith a complete customer analysis, and when these are completed and furnished to the Commission, additional hearings will be had on this phase of electric service.
I t is beyond cavil to assert th a t we are living in a power age. In every community perm anent prosperity and economic progress are becoming more and more dependent upon adequate and cheap power. T his applies not only to manufacturing processes, but to practically all ranges of commercial activities, agriculture, the home, and con stan tly enlarging public uses. Cheap pow er is essential to expanding ranges of economic and social uses.
A recent survey by the Federal Power Commission brings forth the startling yet highly interesting fact th a t the consuming public in the United States today has a greater investm ent in appliances and consuming equipm ent th an the utility companies have in equipm ent to supply the electricity. The statem ent, as given in round numbers, shows $12,900,000,000. invested in equipm ent to supply electricity and $13,200,000,000, invested in appliances and consuming equipm ent by the public. This investm ent of the con suming public manifests its desire to make use of electric energy, and the comparative values of the utilities' investm ent with th e consumers' investm ent brings the question of electric rates as probably the most im p o rtan t before utility Commissions a t this time. For th e most p art, electric rate levels have rem ained unchanged since before th e de pression, when th e y were already excessive. I t is tru e th a t revisions have tak en place here and there, however, these reductions have not corresponded with the tremendous decline in price levels and contraction of purchasing power. W ith th e increasing uses t h a t are being found for electrical energy, b o th for industrial and social uses, i t is m an d atory th a t close and com petent supervision over the rates and practices of utility com-
4

panies supplying electrical energy shall be m aintained to the end th a t the service be extended to the greatest possible num ber of th e public on the cheapest possible rates.
The effect of the reductions th a t have been made in th e rates of electric energy in Georgia will mean a saving of approxim ately $1,500,000.00 if th e same am ount of energy be consumed in 1934 under th e prevailing rates as a t th e tim e th e Commission begun its investigation. The result of the reduction orders has been to very greatly add to th e use of electrical energy. This is especially tru e in th e dom estic field where thousands of homes are adding equipm ent th a t lessens the burdens, and adds to th e pleasures and comforts by the use of these facilities.
The Commission is giving to th is phase of regulation its m ost thorough and in tensive study and will continue to make such revisions and adjustm ents, as it may legally do, as will most effectually aid in th e progress and up-building of every class of industry and of urban and rural home life in the S tate of Georgia.
EXPRESS
The Commission issued a rule nisi directed to all express cpmpanies operating in the State and conducted its investigation.
The investigation disclosed th a t the rates on commodities which can be moved upon passenger trains w ithout m aterial inconvenience to the passengers using said trains have been voluntarily reduced to the less-carload freight rates. This had been done only between the larger cities, jvhich are the m ain distributing points within the State, and the interm ediate points or smaller cities were still paying the old high express rates.
The Commission ordered the express companies to reduce their rates to these inter mediate points to the same basis as th a t in effect between the head-line points. The express companies agreed to do this an d th e rates w ent into effect on December 15, 1934.
This will result in giving th e sm aller cities in Georgia th e same low rates th a t now prevail between the larger cities, and the Commission has ordered the express companies a t th e end of six m onths to file w ith th e Commission a statem en t of th eir tonnage and revenue to show the effect of these rates on their earnings.
GAS
The Commission issued its nisi to all gas com panies operating in th e S tate of Georgia, to show cause why their rates should not be reduced. Investigations were started in th e fall of 1934 and much inform ation was requested of th e companies as to th e heatunit value of their gas, the cost of generation of the gas, customer analysis showing the quantity of gas consumed by the customers of the companies, and information as to their investm ent accounts, and other general information pertinent to these investiga tions. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Commission first considered the rates of the Savannah Gas Com pany and ordered a reduction in its rates. Following this the Commission ordered reductions on all gas rates in effect over the State, effective after Ja n u ary 1, 1935. These reductions, in th e opinion of th e Commission will encourage an increased use of gas, and th e companies as well as th e public will be benefitted. Copies of the opinions and orders appear as a p a rt of this report in Appendix " A" .
5

MOTOR CARRIERS
T he " M otor C arrier Act of 1931" and th e " M otor Common Carriers Act of 1931" placed regulation of all motor carriers transporting persons and property over the high ways of the State of Georgia for hire under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The enforcement of these laws has m aterially added to th e duties and personnel of th e Com* mission's staff, as proper regulation requires extensive and con stan t supervision of those engaged in this form of transportation. The Commission has undertaken to perform its duties under these laws to the best interests of the public and with the desire th a t this form of transportation be developed along dependable lines. M otor carriers for hire, both passenger and freight, are restricted by law in the size of the vehicles th a t operate, the load capacity, and the travelling speed. The law also requires th a t adequate protection by insurance be afforded to those using th is for'm of tra n sp o rta tio n as well as the general public. The Commission has earnestly endeavored to administer these laws im partially and fairly to the general public and those desiring to engage ip this kind of business.
The Commission on its own m otipn on F eb ru ary 7, 1934, issued its rule nisi to all the carriers to show cause why their class rates should n o t be reduced. Hearings were h ad on th e rule nisi and on M arch 27, 1934, th e Commission issued its order prescribing the rates for m oto r carriers for hire in Georgia. T his order was am ended on M ay 17, 1934; a copy of the opinions and orders in this m atter appear in this report as a p a rt of Appendix " A" .
Inform ation in possession of the Commission indicates th a t there has been a very m aterial increase of short-haul freight in Georgia by m otor carriers. This form of trans p o rtatio n has passed th e experim ental stage and is now well recognized in th e public u tility field.
T here is a t present little uniform ity in th e provisions of th e various regulatory statutes of the several States. The requirem ents for qualification, the mileage taxes, and the regulatory features have no semblence of uniform ity. The Commission, a t present, has no discretion in effectuating reciprocal agreements w ith the Commissions of other States. This works a severe handicap to th a t class of com m odity th a t is seasonal and highly perishable in its nature, principally, products of the farm, grove and orchard. I t is suggested th a t if th e General Assembly could vest some discretion in th e Commission as to these m atters, it would inure to the benefit of these industries in Georgia.
PUBLIC SERVICE
The law requires the Georgia Public Service Commission to prescribe ju st and reasonable rates to be observed by all utility companies under its jurisdiction; to in vestigate and pass upon all issues of securities proposed by these corporations, and to regulate and supervise the various classes of service in the interest of the public who use the service and pay the rates. These duties m ust be discharged not only to the satis faction of the Commission but to the public.
Voluminous records, both current and historical, are required, and competent staff assistants in each particu lar field are necessary if th e greatest service is to be rendered.
6

W ithin the means a t its command, the Commission has undertaken to organize a staff to provide dependable assistance to the Commission and adequate service to th e public. T he duties of such a staff comprise the following:
(1) A djustm ent of complaints. This class of service involves investigation of ra te schedules and their application to the class of service, checking of bills, testing meters, and giving personal consideration to bona fide complaints th a t are made from tim e to tim e to the Commission.
(2) A dvisory and supervisory relationships w ith th e utilities regarding economy of operations and adequacy of service.
(3) A nalyzing and recording m onthly reports, annual reports, and such special reports as th e Commission may from tim e to tim e require. I t is through these rep o rts th a t the Commission keeps advised as to the effect of its rate schedules on the revenues of the utilities under its jurisdiction.
(4) G athering and recording statistical inform ation obtainable from th e D ep art ments of the United States Government, the various S tate regulatory bodies, and general research into conditions, values and rates for reference and use when required by the Commission.
(5) A ccounting supervision and investigation is required by th e sta tu te . T he law gives the Commission the authority, either in person or by authorized assistants, to make personal inspection of the books and records of all utilities under its jurisdiction. Under this head comes study and interpretation of operating records and a check of records so th a t the Commission may determ ine th e correctness of charges to operating expenses and the requiring of revisions in th e systems of accounts where such accounts are improperly kept.
Believing th a t a greater service could be rendered to the consuming public, th e Commission established a field inspection service under a com petent field engineer.
T he engineer has visited 87 towns and cities, has inspected 465 electric meters and 56 gas m eters. The tests have not all been made upon com plaint, b u t under the direction of the Commission, the engineer has made spot checks in many instances.
The results obtained from this effort have been most satisfactory to the Commission and have m et with the very general commendation of the public. Such instrum ents and laboratory equipment as was found to be absolutely necessary was purchased. O ther instrum ents and equipment are needed and the scope of this work can be extended by the purchase of additional equipment and the addition of sufficient personnel to visit all sections of the State and reach those to whom this service should be extended.
The Commission has had many requests for its intervention and influence to secure more extended u tility service. T he Commission is w ithout au th o rity to compel th e con struction of service extensions. I t is believed, however, th a t in m any cases if th e Com mission had sufficient staff, surveys and investigations could be made th a t would result in bringing the members of a community in understandable contact with the utility companies in such a way th at these extensions would be made to the satisfaction of the community and the profit of the utility.
7

L E G IS L A T IO N The law makes it the duty of the Commission to recommend from tim e to time such legislation as they may deem advisable (Code Section 2644). The following remedial legislation is suggested: (1) T here appears to be no uniform ity of rates in m unicipalities who either own and operate their own plants or those who purchase a t wholesale and m aintain their own distribution systems. Based on numerous complaints, the Commission issued its rule nisi calling upon these municipalities to show cause why their rates should not be reduced. A petition for injunction was filed by th e C ity of A lbany and practically all municipalities intervened in this case. The Superior Court of Fulton County granted th e injunction, which halted all efforts on the p art of the Commission to regulate municipal rates. An appeal was tak en by th e Commission to th e Suprem e C ourt of Georgia and is now pending in th a t Court. (2) I t is suggested th a t provision be made for th ree Superior C ourt Judges to try all ra te cases. T he venue of all actions against th e Commission is now in F u lto n County. Since the enactm ent of the Johnson Bill, all ra te cases m ust go to th e S tate Courts. These ra te cases are of the utm ost im portance and the statu te can easily be amended so as to require three Superior Court Judges to preside in these cases. (3) A rule of evidence should be enacted making th e record before th e Commission adm issable as original evidence in a ra te hearing before th e C ourts. As th e law now is witnesses may appear before the Commission and testify and a voluminous record be made. The case may then be carried to the Courts and the action of the Commission reviewed on entirely different evidence and th e record before th e Commission thus goes for naught. In addition th e expense incident will be very m aterially reduced as it will not be necessary for witnesses from distant points to attend C ourt when their testimony is already in th e Commission's records. (4) T he sta tu to ry requirem ents for notice and hearing in ra te m atters should be clarified. The statute requires the Commission from time to tim e to revise schedules of rates. A simple amendm ent should be added providing for notice and hearing. I t is believed th a t rem edial legislation along th e lines suggested will m aterially aid the Commission in the performance of its duties as a regulatory body and enable it to determine rate questions much more expeditiously.
8

W ESTERN & A TLANTIC RAILWAY
This Commission is vested w ith authority under the lease acts to supervise the W estern & A tlantic R ailw ay properties. T he condition of th e railw ay property is ex cellent, and th e N . C. & S t. L. R ailw ay is m aintaining th e physical property, in our opinion, as efficiently as th a t of any similar railway property in the S tate of Georgia.
We append hereto th e report of a special com m ittee jof this Commission relating to the hotel properties which are under lease to M r. J. B. Pound of C hattanooga. This report is self-explanatory.
In this connection, we desire to state th a t under authority of an act of the General Assembly th e history of the W estern & Atlantip Railway properties was compiled by th e Honorable J. H oustoun Johnston and published in 1932, and copyrighted in th e name of the Georgia Public Service Commission. The Commission has on hand several hundred copies of th is publication, which i t i unlikely will ever be sold. We suggest th a t we be given the au th o rity to distribute copips of this book to the various high school libraries and public libraries }n th is S ta te as i t contains much m a tte r th a t should be of interest to future citizens of Georgia.
D ecember 14, 1934.
H on. J. P. W ilhoit, Chairman,
Georgia Public Service Commission,
A tlanta, Georgia.
Dear Mr. W ilhoit:
Acting upon your appointm ent as a committee to investigate the hotel property of the State of Georgia located a t Chattanooga, Teneessee, under lease to Mr. J. B. Pound, we subm it the following report:
We find the hotel buildings to be in excellent condition and fully insured. The furnishings in the hotels, on which the S tate has a mortgage, are also in good condition.
The lessee of this property, due to th e business depression, has fallen behind with his rent, and we append hereto a statem ent showing th e condition of the rent account of Mr. Pound.
I t will be observed from th e statem ent attached th a t the lessee has been making paym ents from tim e to tim e on account, th e effect of which is to reduce th e to ta l in debtedness.
The S tate holds U nited States Governm ent bonds of the face value of $9,550. and a mortgage on the furniture and fixtures in both hotels as security to the lease contract. The furniture in place for use in the hotels is w orth from eight to ten thousand dollars, so th a t as th e lease account now stands, th e S ta te is secured su bstantially to th e am ount of the unpaid rents.
The lease contract was entered into for a period of fifty years, beginning December 27, 1919 and ending December 27, 1969. F o r th e first ten-year period, th e annual rental, payable in m onthly installm ents, was $8,340.00; for th e second ten-year period $9,540.00;
9

for th e third ten-year period $11,340.00; for th e fourth ten-year period $14,640.00; for the fifth ten-year period $16,140.00. In addition to th e paym ent of rents, th e lessee obligated himself to spend $35,000.00 in im provem ent of the premises w ithin three years after th e d a te of th e lease contract, all of which th e lessee did.
T here is no dou b t b u t th a t th e business depression has severely curtailed th e income and rentals from th is pro p erty to th e lessee, and in view of prevailing conditions, we believe the m atter should be subm itted to th e General Assembly for its consideration.
Respectfully subm itted,
J. B. D a niel, C ommissioner J. J. E . Anderso n , Ass't. A ttorney Gen'l. G eorge B. H amilton, S tate T reasurer
A tlanta, Ga.,
Dec. 19, 1934.

Mr. J. B. Pound, Chattanooga, Tenn., In account with State of Georgia.
Under Hotels Lease Contract.

1930

R ent, 1930__________......________ ______ 9,540.00

C red its: Feb. 28,______ .....__________________________ .......... Apr. 30,____ .._______ _____ ....__ __________________ June 30,________ _____ ______________ _______ _______ Aug. 31,_____ ............__ _________________ _________ Oct. 31,_________ _________ ..._____________________ Dec. 31........_____

1,390.00 1,790.00 1,590.00 1,590.00 1,590.00
795.00

1931

R ent, 1931,....................................................... 9,540.00

C re d its: Jan. 28,__________ ________________ __________ ______ Feb. 2,______________ Mch. 24,.......................... ..............__ _____ ____________ M ay 1,..... ............................. ............... ..._______ .....___ M ay 16,................... .............................................................. June..........:......................................... ................ ;................. Ju ly 27,..:________________ _____ ____.....____________ Sep. 21,........................................ Oct. 26,............................:......... ........... ....................... .......... Nov. 12,____ ____________ ____________ ........___I____ Dec. 28,_________ ______ .'.________ _______ .........____

795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00

10.

8,745.00 8,745.00

1932

R ent, 1932,__________________________ 9,540.00

Credits: Jan . 25,..--------- .....----------------------------------------------Feb. 23.......------------------------------------------ _------------M ch. 23,..----------- ------------------------ --------------------..... M ay 13,.....,.-- ................. .-- -----------------------..---------

795.00 795.00 795.00 795.00

3,180.00

1933

R ent, 1933,____________________________ 9,540.00

Credits : Jan . 11,.............................................. Feb. 13,----------- -------------------------------......_________ M ch. 28,...,..---------------...----------------- ...._________..... Apr. 10,................ I ------ ------ ..------------------------- -----M ay 1,...------------
3,.................. --- .-------- .......--------------------------June 9,.........................................................
15........------ ...J ________ _______ _____________ Aug. 2,................... ....................---------------------------Oct. 3,.________ _____________ ____ __________ ..___
20,--------- -------------- ........-- ..-- ------- ;----------Nov. 16,................................
25,----Oec. 30,------ ------------------------------- --------- -------------

795.00 795.00 400.00 395.00 202.94
592.06 400.00 395.00 250.00 500.00 202.94 300.00 200.00 200.00

5,627.94

1934

R ent, 1934___________ _______ .....______ 9,540.00

Credits: Jan . 22,--------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------------------Feb. 21,----------------------- .....----------------------------- ..... Apr. 6,------------------------------------------------------- ---
19,-............... -----------------------------------------------M ay 5-------- --------------- --------- ---------------------------June 14,-------------------- _------------------------------- -------July 26,-------------------------------- ;---------------------------Sept. 4,..-----------------------------------------------------------
28.. ..-Oct, 17,..................................... ....................................... ....

200.00 500.00 500.00
202.94 500.00 500.00 300.00 200.00 250.00 195.50

3,348.44

Balance Due,.

47,700.00

29,646.38

------------------------ -------------- 18,053.62

CONCLUSION We stated in our last annual report th a t studies by the Commission indicated th a t the general level of all u tility rates in Georgia had rem ained unchanged over a long period of years. Our investigation th ro u g h o u t th e y ear 1934 lead to th e inevitable conclusion th a t utility rates as a whole were unduly high and out of line w ith the ability of the general public to pay for utility service. As a result of these investigations, the Com mission has from time to tim e ordered substantial reductions in the rates of all utility corporations th a t have been under investigation. T here is no d o u b t b u t t h a t th e passage of th e Johnson bill by th e Congress will have a salutary effect on rate regulation and th a t much of th e tedious and long-drawn out litigations over rate orders which has obtained in th e Federal C ourts will be avoided in the future. I t is not possible a t th is tim e to com pute in dollars and cents th e savings to th e people of Georgia brought about by the reduction orders which this Commission has ordered and are now in effect, however, it is believed th a t a conservative estim ate will place th e am ount a t n o t less th a n six million dollars for th e y ear 1934. I t has been the practice heretofore to incorporate in the annual reports the statutes applicable to the Commission. In view of the fact th a t a new code of laws has been adopted by th e G eneral Assembly and is ready to be prom ulgated, it is considered a useless expenditure to merely copy statutes in the annual report. The annual reports have also carried the general rules of the Commission. The Commission has on hand a large num ber of copies of its 60th report which can be used to supply those who m ight desire copies of these rules, and it is th o u g h t unnecessary to go to th e expense of incorporating th e rules in this report.
Respectfully submitted, J tjd P. W il h o it , C hairm an G eo. L. G oode T hos. K . D avis B enaT . H ttiet J. B. D aniel
12

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION ATLANTA

File-- 18971

IN R E : G eneral R evision of all D omestic and C ommercial R ates in G eorgia

BY TH E COMMISSION:

T he Commission on Ja n u a ry 12, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to th e S av an n ah Electric & Power Company to show cause why the prevailing rates for domestic and elec tric service should not be reduced, and all extra charges for service by whatsoever nam e they are called should not be reduced and/or eliminated.

The Savannah Electric & Power Company was notified to appear on January 15th, when it did appear, and was excused until further notified by the Commission for a hearing. Before a hearing was scheduled and after an informal investigation, the Georgia Public
Service Commission form ulated a schedule of rates for domestic electric service, which w as deemed to be fair, just and reasonable and commensurate with the cost for furnishing said service, and the Savannah Electric & Power Company agreed to accept said rates effective on bills rendered on m eter readings m ade on or after M arch 1, 1934, for consum ption of electric current wholly within the m onth of February ,1934.

The Commission having thus obtained its objective, an order will be passed directing th e Savannah E lectric & Power C om pany to file a complete schedule of rates in accordance with th e rates fixed as hereinafter set out, and with the effective date as above set forth..

BY O RD ER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, This th e 29th day of January, 1934.

J. M. F orrester,

Secretary.

_

Jud . P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.,

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

ATLANTA

Ja n u a ry 29, 1934.

F ile --18971.

TO TH E SAVANNAH ELECTRIC & POW ER COMPANY:

You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it finds th a t the schedules of rates and charges for electric power for domestic consum ption now in force in the territory served by the Savannah Electric & Power Company, are unreasonable and excessive, and has further found th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the shedules hereto attached, said rates to become effective on bills rendered on m eter readings m ade on or after M arch 1, 1934, for consum ption of electric current wholly within th e m onth of February, 1934, subject to fu rth er order of th is Commission, and you are,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Comm ission in accordance therewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary

J. P. W ilhoit, C h airm an

13

SAVANNAH ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE SCHEDULE " A"
A pplicability: Available to all residential customers served by the Company by its existing dis
tribution lines, except as otherwise provided herein. For residential lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration and other small residential
power, also hall and basement lighting in apartm ent houses when served through a separate meter.
Any service used for commercial purposes such as central unit refrigeration systems and other apartm ent house power, and dwellings accommodating more than four paying .guests will n o t be served under this schedule.

First Next Next Over

RATES

25 K W H, per m onth...................................... | ............ 7.22c. per K W H

35K W H, per m onth.....................................................5.55c. per K W H

140 K W H , per m onth.....................

3.33c. per K W H

200 K W H , per m onth.....................................................1.67c. per K W H

M inim um M onthly Charges: $1.11 (gross) per m onth.
Prom pt Paym ent D iscount: All bills paid w ithin ten days from p resentation are subject to a discount of 10 per
cent.

C ontract Period: One Year.
FOR SEASONAL RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AT SAVANNAH BEACH T he above rate s will ap p ly plus 25% where service is rendered for less th a n th e con
tr a c t period. Provided no custom er billed! under th is schedule shall pay a minim um bill for any m onth in which no c u rren t is consum ed.

SAVANNAH ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY O ptional Off Peek W ater-H eating R ate. Schedule A -l.
C lass o f Service Any residential customer using electric water heating.
Energy Charge For th e first 30 K W H per m onth 2.22c. per K W H For all over 30 K W H per m onth 1.11c. per K W H
14

M inim um Charge $1.11 per m onth.
Prom pt Paym ent D iscount: Above rate subject to 10% discount on all bills paid on or before 10 days after D ate
of Bill.
The w ater heater service shall be supplied through a separate m eter and no other appliance shall be connected to this meter.
Lim itations
A. W a ter H ea tin g E quipm ent This ra te is lim ited to a tw o-unit ty p e of w ater heater, of construction approved by the Company. Each unit shall be non-inductive and shall be controlled by a separate therm ostat. The upper unit and therm ostat are located \ of tank capacity below the top of tan k ; th e lowfer u n it and th erm o stat near th e b ottom of tank.
Per gallon of ta n k capacity, th e connected load shall be as follows:
Plain ty p e w ater heaters: Lower u n it approxim ately 20 w atts; upper unit, 30 w atts.
W ater heaters of special construction to deliver hot w ater to top of tank with mini m um mixing; Lower u n it approxim ately 25 w atts; upper unit, 50 w atts.
The equipm ent shall be such th a t the capacity of the heating units connected a t any one tim e shall not exceed the connected load of the upper unit.
B. H ours of U se The lower u n it only is controlled by a tim e switch restricting th e use of current for this u n it to hours 9:00 A. M. to 11:30 A. M .; 2:00 P. M. to 5:30 P. M .; and 9:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M .; a n d /o r such other hours as th e com pany m ay specify. (The to ta l hours of use may n o t be less th a n 15 per day).
Jan u ary 29, 1934.

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

ATLANTA

File-- 19214

Case-- 54-- A

IN R E : General R evision of all D omestic and C ommercial R ates in G eorgia.

BY TH E COMMISSION:
T he Commission on A ugust 30, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all electric light and power companies operating under th e jurisdiction of the Georgia Public Service Commission to show cause why th e prevailing rates for domestic and commercial electric service should not be reduced and all extra charges for service by whatsoever name they are called should not be reduced and/or eliminated.

The Georgia Power Company was notified to appear on November 7th, when it filed its answer and a hearing was commenced. D uring th e hearing th e Georgia Public Service Commission form ulated a schedule of rates for domestic consum ption which were accepted by the Georgia Power Company and further hearings on commercial rates were suspended. D uring said period of suspension th<e Georgia Public Service Commission form ulated a schedule of rates which it deemed to be fair, ju st and reasonable and comm ensurate with th e cost of furnishing said service and th e Georgia Power Company agreed to accept said rates, effective on bills rendered on m eter readings made on and

15

after M arch 1st, 1934, for consum ption of electric cu rren t wholly w ithin th e m onth of February.

The Commission having thus obtained its objective, an order will be passed directing th e Georgia Power Com pany to file a com plete schedule of rates in accordance w ith th e rates fixed as hereinabove set o u t and w ith th e effective date as above set forth.

W hen th e Georgia Pow er Com pany has complied w ith said order an d has filed its
schedule of rates in accordance therew ith, an order will be passed by this Commission dissolving the rule nisi as to th a t Company.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, This, th e 6th day of February, 1934.

J. M. F orrester Secretary

j . p . Wilhoit, C hairm an.

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

ATLANTA
February 6, 1934.
File-- 19214.
Case-- 54-- A.
TO TH E GEORGIA POW ER COMPANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for electric lighting and power for com mercial consum ption now in force in the S tate of Georgia are unreasonable and excessive and it further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance w ith schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings made on and after M arch 1st, 1934, for consum ption of cu rren t wholly w ithin th e m onth of February, subject to th further order of this Commission, and you are,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Com mission in accordance therewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. Wilhoit, C hairm an.

Superseding Old " B "

F irst revised Sheet, No. 13.

GEORGIA POW ER COMPANY

COM M ERCIAL SERVICE

SCHEDULE " II" 1 1 5 /2 3 0 (120/208), Volts, Single Phase.

(Three Phase Service in Accordance with Three Phase Clause)

A pplicability: All territory served by th e existing d istribution lines of th e Com pany.

Commercial lighting a n d / o r power, Commercial cooking, heating and refrigeration for which a separate schedule is provided m ay be served through th e same m eter?w ith lighting a n d /o r power under this schedule a t the option of the customer.
16

R ate:

F irst Next Next Next Over

SOK W H per 170K W H per 800K W H per 1000K W H per 2000K W H per

month @ month @ month @ month @ month @

7.22c. per K W H 6.66c. per K W H 5.55c. per KWH 4.44c. per K W H 3.33c. per K W H

M inim um M onthly C harge: The minimum m onthly charge is $1.11.

P ro m p t P ay m en t D iscount: All bills paid w ithin te n days from p resentation are subject to a discount of 10 per
cent.

C ontract Period: One Year.

D irect C u rren t Service:
D irect current service will be rendered to existing D. C. customers a t the above ra te plus a surcharge of 10 per cent of th e to ta l bill.

N O T E : For Standby or Tem porary Service under this schedule see Supplementary R ates Following:
Effective February 1, 1934.

GEORGIA POW ER COMPANY

COM MERCIAL SERVICE

Inducem ent Schedule " B-6" 1 1 5 /2 3 0 (1 2 0 /2 0 8 ) Volts, Single Phase

(Three Phase Service in Accordance with Three Phase Clause) A pplicability:
Applicable on the basis provided herein for all territory served by the existing distribution lines of the Company.

R ate:

F irst 15 K W H or less per m onth...______ $1.11

Next

985K W H per month..... ......................... 5.00c. per K W H

N ext 3,000K W H per m onth.............................. 3.33c. per K W H

Over 4,000 K W H per m onth.______._____ ___ 2.22c. per K W H

All consum ption in excess of 100 K W H per K W of dem and and which is also in excess of 1,000 K W H per m onth will be billed as follows:

F irst 3,000K W H per m onth....... ....................... 2.22c. per K W H Over 3,000K W H per month.............................. 1.11c. per K W H

D eterm ination of D em and:
By measurem ent of highest 30 m inute interval m onthly. The demand so determined shall not be less th an seventy per cent (70%) of th e highest demand established during any of th e im m ediately preceding twelve (12) m onths, nor less than th e co n tract minimum.

A t option of the customer, the demand may be taken as the sum to tal of all con nected load exclusive of cooking and heating loads.

M inim um M onthly C harge:
$1.11 per m onth for th e first 10 K W of maximum dem and, plus $1.11 per KW of m aximum dem and in excess of 10 KW .
17

Contract Period: One Year.
Prom pt P aym ent D iscount:
All bills paid w ithin ten days from presentation are subject to a discount of 10 per cent.
D irect Current Service:
D irect current service will be rendered to existing D . C. customers a t th e above rate plus a surcharge of 10 per cent, on th e to ta l bill.
Application of R ate P la n :
(a) R ate B-6 shall be applicable on bills rendered to those customers who have had service for twelve m onths or more and whose m onthly bills figured a t R ate B-6 equal or exceed th e am ount paid to the Company th e same m onth during the twelve m onths preceding the effective date of this rate.
(b) For customers who have not had service for twelve m onths preceding effective d ate of th is rate, and for new customers, R ate B-6 will n o t become applicable until such customers shall have taken service for a twelve-months period.
(c) W henever th e custom er's bill for any m onth com puted under R a te B-6 would be less th a n th e am ount paid th e same m onth last year, b u t would be greater under other appropriate rate or rates, then the bill rendered shall be the am ount paid the same month last year.
(d) W henever other appropriate rate or rates now available result in a bill equal to or less th a n th e am ount paid th e same m onth last year, th e custom er will be billed on such other appropriate rate or rates.
(e) Beginning w ith billings based on m eter readings m ade on or after M arch 1, 1939, R ate B-6 shall apply to all commercial custom ers of th e Com pany for merly served under schedules B, B-2, and B-3 and shall be available to com mercial customers formerly served under schedules B -l and B-5.

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERYICE COMMISSION

ATLANTA

File-- 18971

IN R E : G eneral R evision of all D omestic and C ommercial R ates in G eorgia.

BY TH E COM MISSION:
The Commission on A ugust 30, 1933, issued a rule nisi directed to all electric light and power companies operating under the jurisdiction of th e Georgia Public Service Commission to show cause why the prevailing rates for domestic and commercial electric service should not be reduced and all extra charges for service by whatsoever name they are called should not be reduced and/ or eliminated.

The Savannah Electric & Power Company was notified to appear on February 26th regarding reduction of its commercial rates, when the Commission form ulated and pre scribed a schedule of rates for electric lighting for commercial consumption which it deemed to be fair, ju st and reasonable and commensurate with the cost of furnishing said service, and the Savannah Electric & Power Company accepted said rates, as shown in Exhibit " A" hereto attached, to become effective on bills rendered on m eter readings m ade on and after April 1, 1934, for consum ption of current wholly w ithin th e m onth of March.

T he Commission having th u s obtained its objective, an order will be passed directing th e Savannah E lectric & Power Com pany to file a complete schedule of rates in accord-
18

ance with the rates fixed as hereinabove set out and w ith the effective date as above set forth.

When the Savannah Electric & Power Company has complied with said order and has filed its schedule of rates in accordance therew ith, an order will be passed by this Com mission dissolving th e rule nisi as to th a t Company.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM MISSION, This, th e 6th d ay of M arch, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. p. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

ATLANTA

M arch 6, 1934.

File-- 18971

TO THE SAVANNAH ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY:

You are hereby advised th a t th e Commission on this date m ade its findings wherein it fidds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for electric lighting and power for com
mercial consum ption now in force in th e S tate of Georgia are unreasonable and excessive and it further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on an d after April 1, 1934, for consum ption of c u rren t wholly w ithin th e m onth of M arch, subject to th e further order of this Commission, and you are,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith th is Com mission in accordance therew ith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F o rrester, Secretary.

J. p. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

Superseding Old " B" and Old " E " .

SAVANNAH ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY

COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SERVICE

SCHEDULE **BHj 1 1 5 / 2 3 0 Volts, Single Phase or T hree Phase

A pplicability:

^

All territory served by th e existing distribution lines of th e Company.

Commercial lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration and/ or power m ay be served through the same meter with lighting and/ or power under this schedule a t the option of the customer.

R ate:

F irst Next Next Next Over

200 K W H per m onth @ 8.00c. p er K W H 300 K W H per m onth @ 6.66c. per K W H 500 K W H per m onth @ 5.00c. per KW H 1000 K W H per m onth @ 3.50c. per K W H 2000 K W H per m onth @ 3.00c. per K W H
19

M inim um M onthly C harge: T he minim um m onthly charge is $1.11.
P rom pt P aym ent D iscount: All bills paid w ithin tfen days from presentation are subject to a discount of 10 per
cent.
C ontract Period: One year.
Schedule " C" : Commercial power schedule will continue in force as a t present.
D irect C u rren t Service: D irect current service will be rendered to existing D. C. customers a t th e above
rates plus a surcharge of 10 per cent of th e to ta l bill, provided th a t in no instance shall this increase any custom er's bill as com puted by application of th e superseded rate.
Effective M arch 1, 1934
For meter readings on and after April 1st for service wholly within the month of March.

D O C K ET N U M BER 381-A

RE:

R ev ision of D omestic and C ommercial R ates of the G eorgia P ow er and L ight Company.

BY TH(E COM M ISSION:
The Commission on M ay 19th, 1934, issued its rule nisi, directing th e Georgia Power & L ight Com pany to show cause on M ay 28th, 1934, why its prevailing rates fo r dom estic and commercial electric service should not be reduced and all extra charges for service, by w hatever name they are called, should not be reduced a n d / o r eliminated.

The hearing on the nisi was recessed from May 28th and the m atter was taken up by the Commission on M ay 30th, a t which tim e the Georgia Power and Light Company was given opportunity to place before the Commission any information it desired to put into the record by the Company and the Commission proceeded to cross-examine several of th e officials of th e Com pany who were present. T he hearing was recessed and on the 12th day of June the Commission notified the Georgia Power and Light Com pany by letter th a t th e case would again be tak en up on Ju n e 15th, 1934, which lette r stated in p a rt as follows:

" a t which tim e you will be given an opportunity to produce any evidence which you have or desire to present to the Commission.

" In the event th a t you do not desire to appear and offer testim ony a t th a t

#

hearing, the Commission will close the record and will consider th e record

as made, together w ith inform ation th e Commission has in its files and will

proceed to pass its order."

U nder th e law of th e S tate of Georgia, it is th e d u ty of th e Public Service Com mission from tim e to time to inquire into the rates and charges of utilities which come under its jurisdiction. In accordance w ith the law and the duty imposed upon it, the Commission has issued its rule nisi, set its dates for hearings and given the Georgia Power and Light Company opportunity to present such evidence as it desired to present in re sponse to the rule.

This Commission has made an investigation as to the rates and charges of every
utility, operating in Georgia, serving the people of Georgia w ith electricity for domestic 30

and commercial use. For many months the Engineering and Accounting D epartm ents of this Commission have been engaged in a study of th e inform ation in th e files of this Commission in order to advise the Commission as to w hat constitutes a fair, ju st and reasonable charge from the standpoint of the utility who furnishes the service and from the standpoint of the consuming public who pay for the service.

This Commission has prescribed rates and charges affecting approximately ninety per cent of the electrical energy consumers w ithin this State, which rates are now in effect, except in th e territory served by the Georgia Power and Light Company.

U nder these rate orders th e charges per K W H have been reduced, b u t th e effect of the reductions in K W H charges has resulted in a m aterial increase in the consumption of KW H, both to the advantage of the seller and to the convenience of the public.

The utilities in computing their anticipated loss under reduced K W H charges have com puted th eir losses on th e old custom er analysis under th e old high rate, b u t th e in crease in consum ption caused by the reduction has m aterially reduced th e loss which was anticipated, which clearly dem onstrats th a t a reasonable price will bring about increased use and will prove profitable to a utility of th is class.

The Commission has kept in close touch w ith th e efforts being p u t forth by the national government through th e Tennessee Valley A uthority and finds encouragement in its efforts in behalf of th e consuming public in th e fact th a t the Tennessee Valley A uthority has required the same rates which this Commission has prescribed for utilities operating under its jurisdiction to be p u t into effect in Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, K entucky and other points in the Valley.

The Commission has given careful consideration to all the evidence and to all the information in its possession, and finds th a t the prevailing rates and charges of the Georgia Power and Light Company are excessive and entirely out of line with rates elsewhere throughout this entire section, and constitute an unreasonable and unnecessary burden upon the territory served by the Georgia Power and Light Company, and are in excess of the reasonable value of the service rendered to the public.

The Commission further finds th a t reductions in rates to other companies similarly situated have resulted in increased volume of sales and only a slight reduction in total revenue, and further finds th a t under th e present rate of increase brought about by th e lower K W H charge, th e losses will be entirely absorbed in th e very near future.

We further find th a t the conditions as they exist in the territory served by the Georgia Power and Light Company a t this time, th a t a lower rate would be of substantial and material benefit to the Company.

W e-further find th a t a considerable increase in revenue could be had by this Com pany by increasing th e o u tp u t over its existing system. This will be done as has been conclusively demonstrated in every other instance by a reduction in the charges for the unit of service. The increased consumption with corresponding increase in revenue would p u t the Company in a more favorable financial condition, and in the opinion of this Commission, would require practically no increased investm ent. The facilities of the Company are now capable of delivering to its customers more than twice the present output, and an increase in volume over its existing lines would reduce the cost of dis tribution of the unit of energy far more than the rate reduction herein ordered. The large claimed investm ent of the Company and the small total sales and the small am ount of energy consumed by th e individual customer indicate th e basis of this finding.

The Commission further finds, after full consideration, th a t a schedule of rates as set forth in Appendix " A" hereto attached and made a part of this order are just and reasonable rates for the Company to charge for its service.

An Order will be taken accordingly.

This, th e 28th, day of June, 1934. 21

J. P. W ii/hoit, C hairm an.

D OCKET NUM BER 381-A

TO TH E GEORGIA POW ER & LIG H T COMPANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for electric lighting and power for com mercial consum ption now in force in the S tate of Georgia are unreasonable and excessive and it further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance w ith schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and a fter A ugust 1, 1934, for consum ption of current wholly w ithin th e m onth of July, subject to th e fu rth er order of this Commission, and you are,
T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith th is Com mission in accordance therewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this, the 28th day of June, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C h airm an

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

BASIC RATES

RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

SCHEDULE "A"
A pplicability :
Available to all residential customers served by the Company by its existing dis trib u tio n lines, except otherwise provided herein.
For residential lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration and other small residential power, also hall and basem ent lighting in apartm ent houses when served through a separ ate meter.
Any service used for commercial purposes such as Central unit refrigeration systems and other apartm ent house power, and dwellings accommodating more th an four paying guests will n o t be served under this schedule.

R ates:
F irst Next Next Over

25K W H per m onth...................................... ......................8.33c. per K W H

35 K W H per m o n th .............................................................5.55c. per K W H

140 K W H per m onth.........................................

3.33c. per K W H

200 K W H per m o n th.... ........................

2.22c. per K W H

M inim um M onthly Charge: $1.11 per m onth.

P ro m p t P aym ent D iscount:
All bills paid w ithin ten days from presentation are subject to a discount of 10 per cent.

C ontract Period: One Year.

___________

COM M ERCIAL SERVICE

LIGHT AND /O R POWER

SCHEDULE "B" 115 or 230 Volt Service, Single Phase or T hree Phase A pplicability: All territo ry served by th e existing distribution lines of th e Com pany.
22

Commercial lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration and/ or power may be served
through the same meter with lighting a n d /o r power under this schedule a t the option of the customer.

R ates:
First Next Next Next Next Over

50 K W H per m onth___ __ 1............................................ 8.88c. per K W H

150K W H per month............................

7.77c. per K W H

300K W H per m onth..... ...........................

6.66c. per K W H

500K W H per month..._......................

5.55c. per K W H

1,000K W H per m onth....... ................................................... 4.44c. per K W H

2,000K W H per m onth.... ...................................................... 3.33c. per K W H

M inim um M onthly Charges: $1.11 per m onth.

P ro m p t P aym ent D iscount: All bills paid w ithin ten days from presentation are subject to a discount of ten per
cent.

Contract Period: One Year.

Effective August 1, 1934.

File No. 18,057
M arch 27, 1934.
IN R E: G eneral revision of Class rates APPLIED BY MOTOR CARRIERS OF FREIGHT and/ O R PROPERTY BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
BY TH E COMMISSION: The Georgia Public Service Commission on its own initiative issued its rule nisi
on February 7, 1934, directed to all m otor carriers in the S tate to show cause why th e present class rates now being charged for the transportation on freight a n d / o r property within the State of Georgia should not be reduced.
The said nisi had attached thereto a schedule of rates and the said m otor carriers were ordered to show cause why the rates shown on said schedule should not be made effective on Georgia in trastate traffic. Hearings on the rule were begun on M arch 12, 1934, according to the original notice and rule nisi.
The motor carriers were present a t said hearing and offered testim ony and gave information concerning said rates and were cross examined by this Commission and the m atter was fully gone into and the hearing concluded.
The testimony offered by the carriers a t these hearings was general in its nature and dealt with existing operating conditions, costs and expenses.
The present schedules of class rates, fares and charges in effect for transportation by motor common carriers of property are those prescribed by this Commission on August 10, 1932, in file No. 18,057. These schedules have been in effect since Septem ber 1, 1932, and apply to all motor carriers of freight subject to the M otor Common Carriers' Act of 1931 between all points w ithin the S tate of Georgia.
In its order of August 10, 1932, th e Commission provided th a t the class rates and charges then prescribed should be applied to the classification ratings which it set forth in Appendix " D " attached to th a t order. The order further provided th a t the rates and
23

charges so prescribed and applied shall be subject to and be governed by th e general rules of the Commission set forth in Appendix " B" attached to said order.
The Commission has considered the question of the classification basis used in th a t order, and as was shown by th e m otor carriers a t th e hearing, th a t basis of classification was not in accord w ith th e Southern classification basis used by rail carriers. T h at the general effect of th is difference in th e two bases of classification ratings results in a lack of uniform ity of the classification of property which the public has for shipm ent and results in a more complex rate structure.
T he Commission from its study of th e rates and classifications is of th e opinion t h a t th e use of an uniform classification basis for all carriers, b o th rail and m otor, will simplify and lend uniform ity which will be of benefit to th e shipping^ public. Therefore, a proper order will be entered making the Southern classification ratings now applicable for rail carriers th e ba'sis of classification for freight or property offered for shipm ent by motor carriers between points within the State of Georgia.
The existing rates and charges now in effect and now being charged by motor carriers for the transportation of property between points in Georgia are definitely related to th e level of rates which were in effect for rail carriers a t the time they became effective. T h e relationship was n o t only comparable b u t th e Commission is of th e opinion th a t, in order to give proper effect to the policy establishing an adequate transportation system, th e general level of rates for application of all carriers, w hether rail or motor, should bein harm ony, as the two types of service are competing for the movement of the same
articles.
U nder the statu te, this Commission is charged with the d u ty of prescribing maximum and minimum, just and reasonable rates, fares and charges for transportation by motor common carriers of property and for all services rendered by motor common carriers in connection therew ith. This d u ty is coincident w ith its d uty under th e m andate of the law to prescribe just and reasonable rates for rail carriers,
We have recently prescribed a schedule of rates for rail carriers for general applica tion on the transportation of property between points within the S tate of Georgia. This schedule of rates so prescribed for rail carriers is in harm ony w ith th e schedules attached to the rule nisi in th e case now under consideration. As we said in th e rail carriers' class rate order, herein referred to, this schedule of rates is alm ost identical with th e schedule of class rates now in effect in th e N orthern States (Official T erritory).
N ot only does th e record in this case indicate, b u t the various decisions of the courts, commissions and regulatory bodies, all show th a t the movement of traffic by m otor carriers has rapidly increased during the past two or three years. This evidence likewise discloses th e fact th a t this ty p e of tran sp o rtatio n service is n o t only nationw ide, b u t perm anent. Indeed, it is a m atter of common knowledge, th a t motor carriers are not only operating in competition with rail carriers in the Northern States referred to, but, under the existing class rates which prevail in th a t territory, motor carriers have been able to continue and extend their lines and to increase the volume of their business.
Coordinator, Joseph B. E astm an, in his rep o rt of M arch 22, 1934, said th a t th e highway tonnage for th e year 1932 reported in returns to th e m otor tru ck questionnaire was 32,260,000, and in consideration of those returns in th e light of th e returns to th e shippers' questionnaire indicates a to tal highway L. C. L. tonnage of about 40,000,000 and a to ta l rail and highway merchandise tonnage of about 60,000,000. H e stated th a t th is sum m ary of th e m otor tru ck questionnaire included returns of 148 p riv ate haulers, 71 contract haulers and 214 common carriers, th e la tte r operating 4,668 vehicles, and th a t th e " Official M otor F reight Guide No. 1" issued in December, 1933, lists 1,102 tru c k lines operating 18,031 vehicles. M r. E astm an states:
"In 1932, th e volume of merchandise handled by highways was more th a n twice th a t transported in rail L. C. L. service. Over one-half of this highway tonnage was tran sp o rted distances in excess of fifty miles."
We have considered somewhat a t length in our study of this case the conditions under which m otor carriers are operating in this state and elsewhere. The existing con ditions in Georgia are as favorable as elsewhere in the South, and are far more favorable th an existing conditions in N orthern States. The highways of Georgia have in the past
24

few years been vastly improved and now favorably compare w ith highway conditions elsewhere. From th e stan d p o in t of topography th is S tate has an advantage over Official T erritory. This advantage is reflected in highw ay tran sp o rtatio n in increased mileage thereby lessening th e cost of operation.

Georgia's mild clim ate perm its operation on its highw ays every day in th e year and w ithout th e serious handicap resulting from th e more severe winters, snows and ice

of the N orth.

In Georgia, there is no transportation reason, insofar as we have been able to find, to w arrant the assumption th a t the operating conditions of m otor carriers in Georgia are not as favorable as elsewhere. The Commission, therefore, finds th a t the rates and schedules prescribed A ugust 10, 1932, are u n ju st, unreasonable and excessive and should be reduced to conform to th e level prescribed in th e schedule attached to the rule nisi.

We further find th a t th e schedule referred to and which was attached to the rule nisi in this case, when applied on the basis of classification to be prescribed, to w it: Southern classification ratings, with exceptions, are ju st and reasonable for application as minimum class rates for motor carrier transportation between points within the State of Georgia.

T he n atu re of this ty p e of service is such as to make i t a com plete service, extending from the shippers' to th e consignees' door and covers pickup and delivery. This, a t least in some measure, likewise results ip a more valuable service, both from th e stand point of the time element involved, and from the standpoint of convenience. The complete merchandise service, the flexibility of the service which makes it more closely adapted to th e needs of th e customers, and th e lessened tim e element, all render this ty p e of service more valuable and makes it necessary for us to prescribe a differential to com

pensate for this additional service.

.

An order for th e future will be entered in accordance w ith th e above findings.

J. P. W ilh o it, C hairm an.

D ocket No. 18057
M arch 27th, 1934.
IN R R: General revision of Class raxes I applied by motor carriers of
i FREIGHT AND/ OR PROPERTY BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
BY TH E COMMISSION: After consideration of the record in th e above stated case, and in accordance with
th e opinion and findings of th is Commission, i t is O R D E R E D : th a t effective on and after M ay 1st, 1934, and until the furthr order
of th e Commission, th e class rates shown in Appendix " A" hereto attached and made a p a rt of this order shall be th e minimum rates to be charged by m otor carriers for single and joint hauls between points wholly within the State of Georgia and to be.used and applied by each of the motor carriers of freight operating within the State of Georgia and as hereinafter directed.
O RD ERED FU R T H ER : th a t the maximum rates for motor freight carriers shall be Seven (7%) per centum above the rates shown in Appendix " A" .
O RD ERED F U R T H E R : th a t th e class rates prescribed in this order shall be sub ject to th e less carload Southern Classification ratings as approved by this Commission for rail carriers except th a t where any rule of said Southern Classification conflicts w ith any rule of this Commission, and in the event of such a conflict the rule of this Com mission shall govern.
O R D E R E D F U R T H E R : th a t rules 1 to 23 inclusive of th is Commission issued A ugust 10th, 1932, in D ocket 18057, shall rem ain in full force and effect and shall tak e precedence over any rule in conflict therewith.
25

O RD ERED FU R T H ER : th a t new rules shall be added to said rules to become effective as a p a rt of this order, th e first to be known as Rule 24, which reads as follows:

Unless otherwise authorized by the Commission rates shall be charged and com puted by using the most direct State highway mileage between point of origin and point of destination of shipm ents; distances to be com puted according to th e official S tate highway mileage.

R ule 25 shall read as follows:

Joint rates between motor freight carriers shall be divided on percentages arrived a t by using the local rate of each line to and from the nearest junction or transfer point as factors.

Subject to the further order of the Commission.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

_______ _____

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

APPENDIX "A"

M inimum Class R ates to be charged by all M otor Carriers

OPERATING INTRASTATE IN GEORGIA.

__________

Distances

Rates in Cents per 100 Pounds.

C la ss es

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5 m iles a n d u n d e r .......................... 30 26 21 17 14 12 11

9

8

7

10 m iles a n d over 5........................ 31 26 22 17 14 12 11

9

8

7

15 m iles a n d over 10......................... 33

28

23

18

15

13

12

10

8

7

20 m iles a n d over 15.................... .

34

29

24

19 , 15

14

12

10

9

8

25 m iles a n d over 20.....................

36

31

25

20

16

14

13

11

9

8

30 m iles a n d over 25-........................ 37

31

26

20

17

15

13

11

9

8

35 m iles a n d over 30......................... 39

33

27

21

18

16

14

12

10

9

40 m iles a n d over 3 5 -...................... 40 , 34

28

22

18

16

14

12

10

9

45 m iles a n d over 40-- ..................... 42

36

29

23

19

17

15

13

11

9

50 m iles a n d over 45-- ........... -- 43

37

30

24

19

17

15

13

11

10

55 m iles a n d over 50-........................ 45

38

32

25

20

18

16

14

11

10

60 m iles a n d over 55.......................... 46

39

32

25

21

18

16

14

12

10

65 m iles a n d over 60......................... 48

41

34

26

22

19

17

14

12

11

70 m iles a n d over 65.......................... 49

42

34

27

22

20

17

15

12

11

75 m iles a n d over 70---..................... 51

43

36

28

23

20

18

15

13

11

80 m iles a n d over 75......... ............... 52

44

36

29

23

21

18

16

13

12

85 m iles a n d over 80........................- 53

45

37

29

24

21

19

16

14

12

90 m iles a n d over 85-- ..................... 54

46

38

30

24

22

19

16

14

12

95 m iles a n d over 90----................. - 55

47

39

30

25

22

19

17

14

12

100 miles a n d over 95.......................... 56

48

39

31

25

22

20

17

14

13

110 m iles a n d over 100.......................... 58

49

41

32

26

23

20

17

15

13

120 m iles a n d over 1 10--..................... 60

51

42

33

27

24

21

18

15

14

130 m iles a n d over 120___ - ................ 62

53

43

34

28

25

22

19

16

14

140 m iles a n d over 130......................... 64

54

45

35

29

26

22

19

16

14

150 m iles a n d over 140........................ 66

56; 46

36

30

26

23

20

17

15

160 m iles a n d over 150......................... 67

57

47

37

30

27

23

20

17

15

170 m iles a n d over 160......................... 69

59

48

38

31

28

24

21

17

16

180 m iles a n d over 170................ ........ 70

60

49

39

32

28

25

21

18

16

190 m iles a n d over 18C......................... 72

61

50

40

32

29

25

22

18

16

200 m iles a n d over 190.....................

73

62

51

40

33

29

26

22

18

16

210 m iles a n d over 200--............. ......... 75

64

53

41

34

30

26

23

19

17

220 m iles a n d over 210....... .......... ....... 76

65

53

42

34

30

27

23

19

17

230 m iles a n d voer 220-- ........ ............ 78

66

55

43

35

31

27

23

20

18

240 m iles a n d over 230______ ______ 79

67

55

43

36

32

28

24

20

18

260 m iles a n d over 2 4 0 --..................... 82

70

57

45

37

33

29

25

21

18

280 m iles a n d over 260 -.....................- 84

71

59

46

38

34

29

25

21

19

300 m iles a n d over 280-- ..................... 87

74

61

48

39

35

30

26

22

20

320 m iles a n d over 300.--------- ---------- 89

76

62

49

40

36

31

27

22

20

340 m iles a n d over 3 20 -...................... 92

78

64

51

41

37

32

28

23

21

360 m iles a n d over 3 4 0 -...................... 94

80

66

52

42

38

33

28

24

21

380 m iles a n d over 360-- .................

96

82

67

53

43

38

34

29

24

22

400 m iles a n d over 380......................... 99

84

69

54

45

40

35

30

25

22

420 m iles a n d over 400-....................... 101

86

71

56

45

40

35

30

25

23

440 m iles a n d over 420.......................... 104

88

73

57

47

42

36

31

26

23

460 m iles a n d over 440--------- ----------- 106

90

74

58

48

42

37

32

27

24

26

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

ATLANTA

File-- 18057

IN R E : G eneral revision of Class and C ommodity rates a pplied by motor CARRIERS OF FREIGHT AN D /O R PROP ERTY BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE State of Georgia.

BY TH E COM MISSION: Upon application of certain m otor carriers of freight, the Commission issued its rule
nisi on M ay 1st directed to all freight motor carriers within the State notifying them th a t the Commission would hold further hearings, particularly in reference to pick-up and delivery charges, a t th e S tate C apitol in A tlanta, Georgia, a t ten o'clock A. M., M ay 7th, 1934.
The m otor carriers present a t said hearing offered testimony and gave information concerning the rates and the necessity for a charge for the additional service rendered the public for pick-up and delivery service.

The Commission on. M arch 27th issued its order prescribing a schedule of rates and charges to be collected by m otor freight carriers, and the Commission is now of the opinion th a t the rates and charges ordered are reasonably compensatory to the trucks. The rates which were prescribed on M arch 27th were based on mileage to be computed by Using th e m ost direct S tate highway mileage between po in t of origin and poin t of
destination of shipm ents.

I t appears th a t the motor carriers are required by the public in many instances to render an additional service in the nature of a pick-up and delivery service, which cannot be computed in the m ethod and manner set out in the order of M arch 27th in th a t city streets which are not shown on the highway map of Georgia and where highway
mileage cannot be com puted, is used.

I t was shown in the testimony th a t there was a necessity on the part of the motor trucks to be compensated for this additional service where required by the public.

I t was also shown a t the hearing th a t m any of the public desired to avoid the pay m ent of any pick-up and delivery charge and wished to deliver th e ir freight to th e tru ck depot for shipment, or pick up freight a t the truck depot when goods were consigned to them . I t was also shown th a t there were m any points in th e Statje where th e trucks maintained no depots; a t these points using the door of the customer as their depot for pick-up and delivery.
I t was also shown th a t many trucks picked up full loads or heavy loads on their road trucks and hauled them direct to the point of destination from the point of pick-up.

The Commission is of th e opinion th a t a reasonable charge should be allowed th e trucks for pick-up and delivery service where required by a shipper; th a t this pick-up and delivery charge should not be collected a t points where no depot is m aintained as th e service should be an optional service w ith th e shipper and where no depot is pro vided for him to deliver or receive his freight, no pick-ups or delivery charge should be collected.
T he Commission is fu rth er of th e opinion th a t where shipm ents of more th a n six thousand (6,000) pounds are picked up a t one establishm ent or delivered to one estab lishm ent th a t no pick-ups or delivery charge should be collected.

T he Commission finds fu rth e r th a t in some instances special equipm ent is required to carry certain special freight and for the use of this special equipm ent an additional sum m ight be required and a proper rule will be issued to cover th is special service

27

T he Commission is also of th e opinion th a t its R ule No. 25 which reads as follows:
"Joint rates between motor freight carriers shall be divided on percentages arrived a t by using the local rate of each line to and from the nearest junc tion or transfer point as factors."
shall be amended to read:
" Joint freight rates between motor freight carriers shall be divided on per centages arrived a t by using the mileage to a n d / o r from the nearest junc tion or transfer point of each carrier, provided th a t the short haul carrier shall receive no t less th a n tw enty-five (25) per cent of th e to ta l am ount collected for the shipment."
An order for the future will be entered in accordance w ith the above findings.
BY O RDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this th e I7 th day of M ay, 1934.
J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

File-- 18057.

M ay 17, 1934.
IN R E : G en era l revision of Class and C ommodity RATES APPLIED BY MOTOR CARRIERS OF FREIGHT and/ O R PROPERTY BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE State of Georgia.

BY TH E COMMISSION:
After consideration of the record of the rehearing in the above stated case, and in accordance w ith th e opinion and findings of this Commission, it is

O R D E R E D : T h at effective on and after the date of this order th a t in addition to th e rates prescribed in th e order of M arch 27, 1934, there shall be charged by all carriers the rates prescribed in Appendix " A" of this order for pick-up and delivery service, subject to the provisions and lim itations contained in said Appendix.

O R D E R E D F U R T H E R : T h a t where special equipm ent is required to carry certain kinds of commodities th a t the shipper and carrier may agree upon an additional charge for the use of such extra equipment. In the absence of agreement between the shipper and carrier th e m a tte r m ay be presented to this Commission and proper orders will be passed by the Commission for rates applicable to the use of such special equipment.

O R D E R E D F U R T H E R : T h a t R ule No. 25 contained in th e order of th is Com mission of M arch 27, 1934, be am ended by striking th e entire rule and su bstituting in lieu thereof a new rule to be known as R ule No. 25 and to read as follows:

" Joint freight rates between motor freight carriers shall be divided on per centages arrived a t by using the mileage to a n d / o r from the nearest junc tion or transfer point of each carrier, provided th a t the short haul carrier shall receive not less th a n tw enty-five (25) per cent of th e to ta l am ount collected for the shipment."

Subject to the further order of this Commission.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. K. F orrester, Secretary.
A ttest: A True Copy

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

28

A PPEN D IX " A"
Rates in cents per hundred pounds, to be charged by motor carriers for pick-up and delivery service where either service is performed. W here b o th services are performed th e ra te shall be th e sum of th e two.____________________________________

FIRST CLASS

Miles
O to 20... Over 20 to 6 0 ... Over 60to 160... Over 160............--

Pick-up D e liv e ry

....................... 2

2

............... 3

3

....................... 4

4

........... ....... 5

5

THIRD CLASS

O to 40.. Over 40 to 110.. Over 110 to 180. Over 1 8 0 .............

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

2

__.......... 3

..................... 4

........ ........... 5

FIFTH CLASS

0 to 50....................................... 1

Over 50 to 140................................

2

Over 140 to 400.............----...... .......... 3

Over4CO................................................... 4

SEVENTH CLASS

O to 70. Over 70 to 250.
Over 250........ .

NINTH CLASS

0 to 100. Over 100 to 400Over 400.............

Miles

SECOND CLASS Pick-up Delivery

0 t o 30............................

2 2

Over 30 t o 100.........................

y

Over 100 t o 170. - ..................................... \



Over 170-- ............ - ........ -................. 5

5

FOURTH CLASS

O to 5 0 ............................ Over 50 to 190.......... ..........- ............. 3 Over 190 t o 350............................. Over 350--- ----------------------
SIXTH CLASS

2 2 3 4 4 5 5

O to 60........................... - -- 1

1

Over 60 to 170................................-- 2

2

Over 170-------------------------------

3 a

EIGHTH CLASS

Oto 8G.............-- .........-- - 1

t

Over 80 to 300......... .........- ............... 2

2

Over 300................ -- ................... ---- 3

3

TENTH CLASS

Oto 150-

............. 1

1

Over 150. ........................................-- 2

2

Provided the above pick-up and delivery charges shall not be assessed against any freight picked up or delivered a t any point where carrier does not maintain a depot where freight may be delivered or received.
Provided further th a t no pick-up a n d /o r delivery charge shall be collected by any carrier on any shipm ent where six thousand (6,000) pounds or more is picked up a t one establishm ent or where six thousand (6,000) pounds is delivered to one establishm ent.
M ay 17, 1934.

D OCKET N o. 202-A

File 15410

IN R E : P assenger F ares betw een P oints in G eorgia.

BY TH E COMMISSION: T he Commission on Jan u ary 12, 1934, issued its rule nisi directed to all rail carriers
in Georgia requiring them to show cause on February 13, 1934, why all passei^er fares in Pullman cars and day coaches, which are the maximum fares prescribed by this Com mission to be collected on Georgia intrastate traffic, should not be reduced.
Hearings under said nisi were begun, under order of the Commission, on F ebruary 19, 1934, and continued through F ebruary 21st. F u rth er hearing was had on M a r c h /5,. 1934 and th e record closed as to this rule nisi. The present maximum passenger fa re ra te prescribed for rail carriers in Georgia is 3.6c. per mile.
29

Certain differentials were prescribed for short line railroads, however, it appears th a t these short line railroads have voluntarily abandoned the differentials and appear as giving effect to the same tariff rates as were generally prescribed under the order faxing the rate a t 3.6c. per mile. T he effective date of th e 3.6c. ra te was A ugust 26, 1920.
I t is unnecessary to recite th e reasons for th e fixing of th e ra te now in effect as it is common knowledge th a t the rate was a very substantial increase over the rate th a t had been in effect for several years prior thereto and the increase was granted on account ot the fact th a t prices of all commodities, m aterials and labor had reached a level where the regulatory bodies authorized the increase to meet the then existing conditions.
The Commission on the present hearing developed a rather voluminous record showing the history of the rate and the present condition of the carriers. I t was thoroughly dem onstrated on this hearing th a t the carriers had reached the place th a t passenger revenue, due to falling off of passenger traffic, had severely declined and had reached j lowest point in railroad history. Two im portant elements have entered into this decline in passenger traffic--one, the financial condition of the travelling public, and the other, competition by both regulated motor traffic and private automobiles. The record^ shows th a t over th e period between 1926 and 1932 th e ten principle carriers in Georgia, operating under the prescribed maximum fares decreased sixty-eight per cent, m th e num ber of passengers transported and seventy-one and eight-tenths per cent, in revenue collected. Figures were n o t presented for th e year 1933. The record tends to show, from testim ony by th e carriers, th a t th e decline continued on into th e year 1933.
. This condition became so alarm ing to th e responsible officials of th e carriers operating in Southern Territory th a t they applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for the privilege of installing experimental fares a t a rate of l } 4 c . per mile in day coaches, 3c. per mile in Pullm an coaches w ith round trip privilege of 2c. per mile in Pullmans. This permission was granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and like applica tions were filed and approved by th e various S tate Commissions in Southern T erritory, including this Commission. This experimental or reduced fare was inaugurated for a period of six m onths ending M ay 31, 1934. The carriers have now experienced th e result of three m onths' operations under this reduced fare; December, 1933, January and February, 1934. A tabulatio n of these results, insofar as ascertainable, is hereto attach ed marked Exhibit A."
The Commission, as a result of this hearing and of the record made, thinks it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt th a t the present maximum passenger fare rates are excessive, unreasonable and u n ju st b oth as related to th e public and to th e carriers. I t appears th a t this fact was recognized by th e carriers voluntarily filing tariffs for much lower fares and th a t th is action on th e ir p a rt is a v irtu al admission th a t th e fares are too high and should be reduced.
I t appears from th e testim ony of responsible officials of th e carriers th a t a reasonable ra te is^ such a rate th a t a ttra c ts and moves th e traffic in commerce. M easured by this definition, a reasonable rate m ust be much lower th an th a t now in effect.
The Commission is charged by law w ith th e d u ty of inquiring "from tim e to tim e and as often as th e circumstances may require" into th e ra te schedules and if it finds unfair and unreasonable rates, change and revise schedules of rates. The inquiry has been made, and in the opinion of the Commission, the circumstances require such revision in m axim um passenger fare rates in th e n a tu re of reduction as will fix reasonable rates within the meaning of the law.
, The Commission knows th a t while th e element of com petition very largely enters in to th e falling off of passenger trav el above referred to, a t th e same tim e th e very severe depression existing throughout th e territory has also had its effect upon the carriers' revenue. The extraordinary loss in num ber of passengers hauled is also indicative of th e wor,th of th e service under existing rates. The service afforded th e public by th e rail carriers is one of great im portance and such as is to be fostered if satisfactory com m unication facilities are to be afforded th e public. T he desire to use th is service is con clusively shown by the return of the public to its use under the so-called experimental rates.
30

Upon a consideration of th e record and all relevant facts and circumstances, the Commission is of th e opinion, and so finds, th a t a maximum passenger fare rate of 2c. per mile in trastate in Georgia is fair, reasonable and ju s t both to th e public and th e carriers, and is com m ensurate w ith th e value of th e service and will afford an adequate return to the carriers for this class of service.
The Commission desires to encourage the carriers in their efforts to find a sloution. of their passenger service problems and believes th a t a stable basis of passenger fares should be established w ithout undue and prolonged experimentation. The Commission has no desire to usurp managerial control of the crariers and nothing in this opinion or the order thereon is to be construed or tak en as ham pering th e carriers in th e experiment under way, or any other expeirment th a t inures to the benefit of the public.
An order will be tak en in accordance herewith.
BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
This, the 16th day of March, 1934.
J. P. W ilh oit, C hairm an
(TA BLE OF RATES ON PAGE 32.)

M arch 16th, 1934.

D ocket No. 202-A.

File-- 18931 -- 15419
IN R E : M aximum F ares to B e C harged B y R ail Ca rriers for T ransportation of P assengers B etw een P oints W ith in the State of G eorgia

Upon consideration of the record in the above stated case and of evidence subm itted a t the hearings had thereon, it is,

O R D E R E D : T h a t effective on and after April 20th, 1934, and u ntil fu rth er ordered by this Commission, the maximum fares to be charged by the carriers, shown on Appendix " A" hereto attached and made a p art hereof, for the transportation of passengers over the lines of said carriers between points within the State of Georgia for single, joint or inter-line application:

2 cents per mile for one way passage. (To in no wise affect any lesser charge now in effect voluntarily by the carriers.)

O RD ERED FU R T H ER : T hat the maximum fares prescribed in the foregoing order shall be subject to th e Commission's Passenger Rules N um bers 1 to 20 inclusive, as re ported in pages 92 to 104 of th e Commission's 60th R eport.
O R D E R E D F U R T H E R : T h at all carriers shown in Appendix " A" , attached here to and made a p art hereof, shall sell through tickets from point of origin to point of des tination good for passage over one or more lines of s^,id railroads based on th e mileage fares prescribed in the foregoing order and the charges for any joint or inter-line fares shall be divided between all interested carriers by pro-rating on basis of mileage traveled over each of said railroads.
T he basis for dividing th e jo in t or inter-line fares prescribed herein is n o t intended to prohibit interested carriers from agreeing among them selves on any other divisions of joint or inter-line fares th a t may be satisfactory to all carriers interested.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

31

EXHIBIT "A"
STATEMENT SHOWING INCREASE OVER CORRESPONDING PERIODS PREVIOUS YEAR OF NUMBER OF PASSENGERS CARRIED AND INCREASED REVENUE RECEIVED BY PRINCIPAL CARRIERS OPERATING IN GEORGIA FOR DECEMBER, JANUARY AND FEBRUARY
(FIRST THREE MONTHS AFTER INTRODUCTION OF VOLUNTARY REDUCED FARES.)

December

January

February

Name of Railroad

Increased Passengers %lncreased
Carried Passengers

Increased

Increased' %lncreased Passengers %lncreased

Revenue

Revenue

Carried Passengers

Increased Revenue

Increasd

%lncreased Passengers % Increased

Revenue

Carried Passengers

Increased %lncreased

Revenue

Revenue

A. G . S............ A. B . C ............. ACL A.&W.P.&W. n nf ri n \ t n jjrT t> . p y n
Ga. R. R.-- G . S. & F ........ L &N M fy O XT n *r R+ T.
N . O. & N . E._ SA L Sou. R y ...........

16,862 3,345 8,744
4,098 6,189
223,078

107.41 $ 1,294.52

83.23

331.00

D 995.00 D

83.63 2,626.29

4.574.00

D 246.09

D7.698.00 D

66.25 D 654.40 D

137.50 2,851.07

D l l , 295.00 D

2.775.00

D 6,719.00 D

2,281.39

8,346.37

97.47 D 313.58 D

2.68 5.47 0.30
8.18 5.40 0.35
7.30.
4.01 13.31
2.60 10.40
8.90 11.04
3.08 0.04

4,152 3,100 7,95l
3,237 5,328
195,088

149.80 $ 3,368.50

117.07

207.00

44.422.00

90.04 1,476.39

6,476.27

3,354.94

24.581.00

72.53 D l,614.63 D

121.42

180.74

11.762.00

2,848.00

751.00

2,349.05

77.520.00

109.30 59,998.20

11.18 5.34 8.80
4.70 8.00 5.36
14.10
12.60 0.67 3.10
15.40 1.10 17.84 27.85 10.75

E 13,148 5,562 11,611
4,498 E 5,820
E 169,507

159.06 $ 2,794.59 301.13 1,465.00
5,032.07 E 10,468.00

123.13

403.49

148.85 E 3,814.57

E 78,498.58 99.48 E 79,115.45

10.12 51.91 19.36 12.53
3.93 16.28
28.64 16.38

E-Estim ated (Actual figures are n o t available; however, testim ony shows th a t estim ates are always under actual figures.) These are only figures m ade available to th e Commission for th is comparison.

APPENDIX "A "
LIST OF CARRIERS OYER WHICH MAXIMUM PASSENGER FARES PRESCRIBED IN ATTACHED ORDER SHALL BE APPLIED
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company. A tlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railway Company. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company.
Bowdon Railway. Central of Georgia Railway (H. D. Pollard, Receiver). Charleston & W estern Carolina Railway. Collins & Glennville Railway.
Elberton & Eastern Railroad. Flint River & Northeastern Railroad. Gainesville M idland Railway (Gordon C. Carson, W. B. Veazy-Receivers). Georgia Railroad.
Georgia, Ashburn, Sylvester & Camilla Railway Company. Georgia & Florida Railway (W. Y, Griffin, H. W. Purvis-Receivers). Georgia N orthern Railway. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Company.
Georgia Southwestern & Gulf Railroad (W. M. Legg, Receiver). Greene County Railroad. Hartwell Railway. Lakeland Railway.
Lexington Terminal Railroad Company. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Louisville & Wadley Railroad. Macon Dublin and Savannah Railroad.
Milstead Railway. Monroe Railroad Company. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway (W estern & A tlantic Railroad). St. M arys Railroad.
Sandersville Railroad. Savannah & A tlanta Railway (Chas. E. Gay Jr., Receiver). Seaboard Air Line Railway (L. R. Powell Jr., and H enry W. Anderson, Receivers). Shearwood Railway.
Southern Railway Company. South Georgia Railway. Statesboro & N orthern Railway. Sylvania Central Railway Company.
Talbotton Railroad. Tallulah Falls Railway (J. F. Gray, Receiver). Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia Railroad. Wadley Southern Railway.
Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad.
33

File 16866-2.
D ocket 392-A.
IN R E : G eneral R evision of R esidential and
C ommercial Gas R ates in G eorgia
BY TH E COM MISSION: The Commission on th e 6th day of June 1934, issued its R ule Nisi to all Gas Com
panies operating under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Public Service Commission to show cause on July 16th, 1934, why all gas rates should n o t be reduced and all extra charges for service by whatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced a n d /o r eliminated.
The hearing on the Nisi as regards the rates of th e Savannah Gas Company was taken up on August 8th, 1934, a t which tim e inform ation of various kinds and character as to value, customer analysis, cost of production,etc., were requested. A recess was taken in order th a t the Company might furnish the desired information and the case was again tak en up on Novem ber 5th, 1934, when said case was completed insofar as oral testim ony and exhibits were concerned.
Requests for other information was a t th a t time made and the Commission now finds th a t all said inform ation has been furnished and th e record is now complete, and has been closed, and th e Commission now proceeds to make its findings and fix its order, establishing the rates and charges which the Savannah Gas Company may collect for its gas service for domestic or residential and commercial consumption.
U nder th e law of th e S tate of Georgia, it is th e d u ty of th e Public Service Commission from time to time to inquire into the rates and charges of utilities which comes under its jurisdiction. In accordance with the law and the duty imposed upon it, the Commis sion has issued its Rule Nisi, set its dates for hearings and given the Savannah Gas Com pany opportunity to present such evidence as it desired to present in rponse to the rule.
I t appears from the record th a t the present rates and charges for gas in the terri-, tory served by the Savannah Gas Company has been unchanged for more th a n twelve years.
I t is common knowledge th a t during th e twelve year period since th e now prevailing rates were fixed, many changes have come about in th e economic situation and in the cost of rendering th e service. The rates now prevailing were fixed in th e Spring of 1922 when a reduction of 150 per thousand feet was made in all brackets of th e R esidential and Commercial Rates of the Savannah Gas Company.
For th e six years immediately following this the total gas sales of the Company gradually increased. In th e year 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 th e gas sales have decreased until th e record shows in 1933 th e to ta l sales of gas by this Com pany are less th an the am ount sold in th e year 1922.
The record also shows th a t the cost of production of gas by this Company in the year 1921 (which was th e year ju st previous and was th e latest inform ation available to the Commission when the investigation was being made out of which came the rate re duction order which was issued in 1922) was .6620 per thousand cubic feet as compared w ith th e figure of .2810, as th e cost for th e same operation in 1933, a reduction of .3810 per thousand cubic feet in the cost of th e production of gas since th e present rate was put into effect.
The Savannah Gas Company has a t no time given this Commission information upon which to base th e present value of th e property, upon which they are entitled to earn a reasonable retu rn . T he Commission was furnished certain inform ation, th a t is, th e sum m ary of an appraisal m ade in 1922 by Parsons, K lapp, Brickerhoff and Douglas, which has been brought forward to show additions and betterm ents since th a t time, but the inventory which was subm itted in verification of th e 1922 appraisal shows no u n it prices and, therefore, is impossible to check. Inform ation as to th e book or historical
34

cost which was subm itted is inform ative b u t is far from satisfactory for establishm ent of a present rate base.
In short, the Company has failed to furnish this Commission with information th a t would establish the present value of their property used and useful in the rendition of the service which would fix th e present ra te base.
The record discloses th a t the Savannah Gas Company operates under a managerial contract with the American Gas and Power Company. The American Gas and Power C om pany is th e sole owner of all th e stock and securities of th e Savannah Gas Com pany which carries th e righ t to nam e th e B oard of D irectors and Officers of th e Savannah Gas Company. Under this managerial contract the Savannah Gas Company pays to th e American Gas and Power Company as a m anagem ent fee, 3.75% of its gross operat ing revenues.
The Commission seriously criticized this contract for the reason th a t with the stock ownership set up, the American Gas and Power Company stands in loco parentis and is in fact contracting w ith its child, the Savannah Gas Company, over which it has com plete authority and is in fact contracting w ith itself.
A study of the evidence of the claimed benefits derived from the managerial services through experiments or other managerial services are m utual insofar as all the Companies under th e control and ownership of th e p a re n t C om pany are concerned, and off set each other. The ultim ate benefits if any, in every instance goes to the p arent company who owns all th e stock and receives all th e dividends, and if m anagerial fees are allowed, re ceives all the managerial fees in addition.
The contract discloses th a t th e agreem ent between the parent Company and its child may be term inated a t any time by thirty days written notice by either party. This would p erm it th e co n tract to be annulled a t any tim e and th e fees increased ^or de creased a t th e will of th e p a re n t C om pany and could easily result in th e im possibility of any of the regulated, utilities from ever earning a net return over and above the manaagerial fees th a t would constitute a fair retu rn on th e reasonable value of its pro p erty used in the rendition of its service.
T he Commission is of th e opinion th a t th e 3.75% m anagerial fee is unw arranted and is of the opinion th a t such managerial fees are simply a subterfuge which allows the parent' holding com pany to collect from its child a sum which is set up as an operating expense of th e C om pany and is therefore deductable from its earnings before its n et in come can be established and is a charge which th is Commission deems unnecessary and un earned in the rendition of the service which the utility performs.
The Commission expressly disallows the managerial expense item which has cost, th e Savannah Gas C om pany ip th e year 1930, $24,177.00; in th e year 1931, $23,416.00; in th e year 1932, $20,467.00 and in th e year 1933, $19,255.00, together w ith such expenses as is shown were paid o u t of th e T reasury of th e Savannah Gas C om pany for expenses of various officials who have visited th e p la n t under th is m anagerial contract.
I t is common knowledge th a t a reduction in price tends to increase th e consum ption of any highly competitive commodity.
Gas is a highly com petitive com m odity, com peting w ith such comm odities as coal, electricity, fuel oil, etc. T he reduced prices of th e comm odities w ith which gas com petes has resulted in a large measure in the reduction of the to tal sale of gas by this Com pany.
This Commission is of th e opinion th a t th e record in this case, shown am ong oth er things, the reduction of the cost of production of gas, w arrants a reduction in the rates and charges for gas by this Company.
The Commission expressly disallows the item of managerial expense under the managerial contract and this am ount should be stricken from the operating expenses of the Company.
35
THE GENERAL LIBRARY
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
ATHENS, GEORGIA

The Commission is of th e opinion th a t a reduction in th e rates of th e Savannah Gas Com pany in th e year 1934 will have an effect to increase consum ption and thereby increase the revenues of this Company.

As pointed out elsewhere in these findings, th e reduction of the rates of this Com pany in th e year 1922 bears o u t th e opinion of th e Commission on th is point.

An order will be taken accordingly.

This the 6th day of December, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J tjd. P . W il h o it , C hairm an.

D ocket No. 392-A.

TO TH E SAVANNAH GAS COMPANY;
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it finds th a t th e schedule of rates and charges for domestic, residential and commercial consumption now in force by th e Savannah Gas Company are unreasonable and exces sive and it further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with th e schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings made on and after Janu ary 10th, 1935, for consum ption of gas, betw een th e dates of December 10th, 1934, and Jan u ary 10th, 1935, subject to th e fu rth e r order of th is Commission, and you are hereby

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D to file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of its opera tions, showing gross earnings and itemized statem ent of expenses, including taxes, and you are,

T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith th is Com mission in accordance therewith.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PU BLIC SERVICE COM MISSION, This, the 6th day of December, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J tjd. P . W il jo it , C hairm an.

ATTEST:

A True Copy

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

SCHEDULE "A" RATES
For th e first 10,000 cubic feet per m onth $1.35 per 1,000 cub. ft. F or th e next 20,000 cubic feet per m onth $1.25 per 1,000 cub. ft. For th e next 20,000 cubic feet per m onth $1.20 per 1,000 cub. ft. F o r all over 50,000 cubic feet per m onth $1.15 per 1,000 cub. ft.
All bills calculated on th e above rates are subject to a discount of ten (10ff) cents per 1,000 cubic feet, if paid on or before th e 10th day of th e m onth.
M inimum Charge: $1.00 per m onth per meter.
36

D O C K E T N U M B E R 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

R E : G as C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia

BY TH E COM MISSION:
T he Commission on June 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by whatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced a n d /o r eliminated.

The Georgia Public Utilities Corp., filed its answer, and hearings were duly con ducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it per taining to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate com pensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Athens to become effective on m eter readings on and after February 1, 1935.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this D ecember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

To Georgia Public Utilities Corp.,
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings made on and afte r F ebruary 1, 1935, for consum ption of gas between Jan u ary 1, 1935 and February 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this December 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

37

E X H IB IT " A"

SCHEDULE " O"

GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES CORPORATION

ATHENS

R ate

N et

Gross

Service Charge-- per m eter, per m onth....................... .................. $0.75

Plus the following charge for gas used:

(Per 1000 Cu. F t.)

For th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m onth...................................,,,.$1.25

For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth....... .......................... 1.10

All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per m onth....... .................

1.00

$1.35 1.20 1.10

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the discount for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid within ten days of their date.

M INIM UM BILL: The minimum m onthly bill shall be $1.00.

DOCKET N UM BER ^92-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of Georgia

BY TH E COMMISSION:
T he Commission on June 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced and/ or eliminated.

T he Georgia Gas C om pany filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The
investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Com pany.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering said service, and with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to the Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order In accordance herewith should issue applicable to th e City of Gaines ville to become effective on m eter readings on and after February 1, 1935..

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

38

TO GEORGIA GAS COM PANY;

You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after February 1, 1935, for con sum ption of gas between Jan u ary 1, 1935 and F ebruary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commis sion in accordance herewith.

BY O RDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary

J tjd. P. W il h o it , C hairm an.

SCHEDULE "A" GEORGIA GAS COMPANY

E X H IB IT "A ':

N et Gross

For th e next 1,800 cu. ft. used per month... For th e next 37,700 cu. ft. used per month. For th e next 30,000 cu. ft. used per month. All over 70,000 cu. ft. used per month.

$11..550
1.00 .90 .85

$ 1.60
1.10 1.00
.95

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid in full a t th e office of th e C om pany w ithin ten days of their date.

M IN IM U M M O N TH LY CH A R G E: $1.25.

Docket Number 392-A
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
RE: G as C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia
BY TH E COMMISSION: The Commission on June 4,-1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies
operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced and/ or eliminated.
T he M acon Gas C om pany filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.
39

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it per taining to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by the Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t th e same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju s t and com m ensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to the Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Macon to become effective on m eter readings on and after F ebruary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

JUD. P . WlIiHOIT, C hairm an.

TO MACON GAS COM PANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings made on and after February 1, 1935, for consum p tion of gas between Jan u ary 1, 1935 and F ebruary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY O RDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERICE COMMISSION this De cem ber 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

JuD . P. WlLHOIT, C hairm an.

EXH IBIT "A"

Service Charge--per meter per month..

N e t Gross .$ 0.60

Plus^the following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)
F or th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m o n th ........................... . For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth.... .......................... All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per month... ....... .................. .........

.$ 1.10 $ 1.20

.85

.95

.60

.70

PRO M PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid w ithin ten days of thei!r date.

M INIM UM BILL: The minimum m onthly bill shall be $0.85.

40

Docket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

RE: G as C o m pa n ies O p e r a t in g in t h e S ta te of G eo rg ia

BY THE COMMISSION:
T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced a n d / or elim inated.

The Georgia Public Utilities Co. filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under th e rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and documentary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t th e schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its O rder hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering said service, and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Augusta to become effective on m eter readings on and after F eb ru ary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ttd. P . W il h o it , C hairm an.

TO GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES COM PANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after F eb ru ary 1, 1935, for con sum ption of gas betw een Jan u a ry 1, 1935 and F eb ru ary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F o rerster, Secretary.

J u d . P. W il h o it , C hairm an.

41

EXH IBIT "A"

SCHEDULE " O"

GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES COMPANY

AUGUSTA

RATE

N et Gross

Service Charge-- per m eter, per m onth.......................................... ................ $ 0.65

Plus the following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)
F or th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m o n th ............. ......................................... $ 1.20 For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth........ .......................................... . 1.10 All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per m onth....................................... .....................^ .95

$ 1.30 1.20 1.05

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for pro m p t p aym ent if bills are paid w ithin ten days of th eir date.

M INIM UM BILL: The minimum monthly bill shall be $1.00.

D ocket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia

BY TH E COM MISSION:
T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be re duced and/ or eliminated.

T he Gas L ight Com pany of Columbus filed its answer, and hearings were duly con ducted under th e rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and ser vice of the Company.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by the Company are excessive, unjtist and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the pub lic, and will afford adequate compensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue, applicable to the City of Americus to become effective on m eter readings on and afte r F eb ru ary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934. .

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

TO GAS LIG H T COMPANY OF COLUMBUS: You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein
it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con-
42

sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after F ebruary 1, 1935, for consum p tion of gas betw een Jan u ary 1, 1935 and F eb ru ary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this
Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M . F orrester, Secretary.

J tjd. P . W il h o it , C hairm an,

SCHEDULE " A"

EXH IBIT "A"

GAS LIG HT COMPANY OF COLUMBUS

A M ER IC U S
RATE For the first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m onth----------------------------------- ,---------------- $ 1.85 For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per month.....----------------- ------------------ ------------- 1-20 All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per m onth-------- --------,-------------------- ~-------------------- 1.10

All bills calculated on th e above rates are subject to a discount of ten (10?f) cents per 1000 cubic feet, if p aid on or before th e 10th day of th e m onth.

M IN IM U M C HA RGE: $1.00 per m onth per meter.

D ocket N um ber 392-A
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION
RE: G as C o m pa n ies O p e r a t in g in t h e Sta te op G eo rg ia
BY THE COMMISSION: T he Commission on June 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies
operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be re duced and/ or eliminated.
T he Georgia N atu ra l Gas Corp., filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.
The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.
The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its O rder hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and with the reasonable value of said service to the
43

public, and will afford adequate compensation to the Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City wherever served to become effective on th e m eter readings on and after F ebruary 1, 1935.

BY O RDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

TO GEORGIA NATURAL GAS CORP.:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings made on and after February 1,1935, for con sum ption of gas betw een Jan u ary 1, 1935 and February 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are
,, FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED: To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

j u d . p . W ilhoit, C hairm an.

SCHEDULE "O"

EXHIBIT "A"

GEORGIA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

ALL CITIES

RATE Service Charge--per meter, per month

N et Gross .$ 0.75

Plus th e following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)

F or th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m onth...........................................

$ 1.15

F or th e n e x t 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth.___________ _______" ^

.90

For th e next 15,000 cu. ft. used per m onth_______ .....______________ _ .65

All over 20,000 cu. ft. used per month______________________

.60

$ 1.25 1.00 .75 .70

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT

The difference between th e net and gross rates stated above shall constitute th e dis count for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid within ten days of their date.

M INIM UM BILL:

The minimum m onthly bill shall be $1.00.

44

D ocket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia

BY TH E COM MISSION: T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas C om panies
operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by whatever name the same may be called, should not be re
duced a n d /o r eliminated.

T he V aldosta Gas C om pany filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. T he investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Com
pany.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such .consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t th e same
should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set forth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, just, and commensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Valdosta
to become effective on m eter readings on and after F ebruary 1, 1935.

BY O RDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J tjd. P . W il h o it , C hairm an.

TO VALDOSTA GAS COMPANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after F ebruary 1, 1935, for consum ption of gas between Jan u ary 1, 1935 and February 1, 1935, subject to th e order
of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J ud. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

45

SCHEDULE " O"

EXH IBIT "A"

VALDOSTA GAS COMPANY

RATE

N et Gross

For th e first. 300 cu. ft. or less used per m onth........ ..................................._$ 1.00

Per 1,000 Cu. F t.
For th e next 1,700 cu. ft. used per month..........._................................ .......,,.$. 1.35 For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per month*.............................................. ...... 1.15 All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per month.*......................................................_p.,, 1.00

$ 1.45 1.25 1.10

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid in full a t th e office of th e Com pany within ten days of their date.

M IN IM U M M O NTH LY C HA RGE: $1.00.

D ocket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia
BY TH E COM MISSION:
The Commission on June 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be .reduced a n d /o r eliminated.

T he Consumers Gas & Coke Co. filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set forth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering said service, and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to the Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Waycross to be come effective on m eter readings on and after F eb ru ary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cem ber 20, 1934.

J. M. F orresger, Secretary.

J ud. p. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

TO CONSUM ERS GAS & COKE CO.: You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein
it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds
46

th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on an d a fter F ebruary 1, 1935, for consum ption of gas between Jan u ary 1, 1935 and F ebruary 1, 1935, subject to th e order
of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, nd you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith th is Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J . P- W il h o it , C hairm an.

EXH IBIT "A"

SCHEDULE " O"

CONSUMERS GAS AND COKE COMPANY

RATE

-

N et Gross

For th e first 200 cu. ft. or less used per m onth............... ............................. $ 1.00

P er 1,000 Cu. F t.

For th e next 800 cu. ft. used per m o n th .........................................................$ 1.45

For th e next 1,000 cu. ft. used per m onth...... ......................................... ...... 1.25

For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth...................... ............................... 1.15

All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per month.......................... .............. ........... .

1.00

$ 1.55 1.35 1.25 1.10

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid in full a t th e office of th e Com pany w ithin ten days of their date.

M IN IM U M M O N TH LY CH A R G E: $1.00.

D ocket N um ber 392-A
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION
R E : G as C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia
BY TH E COM MISSION: The Commission on June 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies
operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced an d / or elim inated.
T he Gas L ight C om pany of Columbus filed its answer, and hearings were duly con ducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and ser vice of the Company.
The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now
47

in force by the Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering said service, and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Columbus to become effective on m eter readings on and afte r F eb ru ary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

TO GAS LIG H T COMPANY OF COLUMBUS:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after February 1, 1935, for consum ptipn of gas betw een Jan u ary 1, 1935 and F eb ru ary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith th is Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

E X H IBIT "A "

SCHEDULE " A"

GAS LIG HT COMPANY OF COLUMBUS

COLUMBUS

RATE

Net

Service Charge-- per m eter per m onth........................................... .......... | __ $ o.75

Gross

Plus the following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)
For th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m o n th ................................. .....................$ 1.10 For th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth................... 1.......................... ...... .85 All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per month...................... ............................................... 60

$ 1.20 .95.70

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom p t paym ent if bills are paid w ithin te n days of th eir date.

M INIM UM BILL: The minimum m onthly bill shall be $1.00.

48

D ocket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State op G eorgia

BY TH E COM MISSION:
T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be re duced and/ or eliminated.

The Georgia Public Utilities Company filed its answer, and hearings were duly con ducted under th e rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and ser vice of the Company.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t th e same
should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju s t and com m ensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Rome to become effective on m eter readings and on after F ebruary 1, 1935.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P- W ilh o it, C hairm an.

TO GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES COMPANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings made on and after F ebruary 1, 1935, for con sum ption of gas betw een Jan u ary 1, 1935 and F ebruary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D AND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commision in accordance herewith.

BY O RD ER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W illhoit, Chairman.,

49

EXHIBIT "A"

SCHEDULE " O"

GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES COMPANY

ROME

RATE

N et Gross

Service Charge-- per m eter per m onth.................... ............. ......................... $ 0.75

Plus the following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)

For the first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m onth.......................................................$ 1.15

For the next 3,000 cu. ft. used per m onth.... .......... ...................................... .90

For th e next 15,000 cu. ft. used per month..........................~.................

.65

All over 20,000 cu. ft. used per m onth................................ ............ :.......................60

$ 1.25
1.00 .75 .70

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid w ithin ten days of their date.

M INIM UM BILL: T he minimum bill shall be $1.00.

D ocket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COM M ISSION

R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of G eorgia

BY TH E COM MISSION:
T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced and/ or eliminated.

The Georgia Public Utilities Company filed its answer, and hearings were duly con ducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and th e record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by the Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t the same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t th e schedule of rates and charges for said ser vice set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering said service, and w ith th e reasonable value of said service to th e pub lic, and will afford adequate com pensation to th e Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to th e City of Griffin to be come effective on m eter readings on and after F ebruary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

50

TO GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES CO:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t th e schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after F ebruary 1, 1935, for con sum ption of gas between Jan u ary 1, 1935 and February 1, 1935, subject to th e order of
this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herewith.

BY O RDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M . F o K K E S T E B , Secretary.

J-

W lL H O X T ,

C hairm an.

EXHIBIT "A"

SCHEDULE " O"

GEORGIA PUBLIC U TILITIES COMPANY

RATE

G R IF F IN

Service Charge--per m eter per month..........--

-Net ............ ............... 0.75

Gross

Plus the following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)
For th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per m onth...,............. .................................---S 1-10 F or th e next 3,000 cu. ft. used per month.............................................................. 85 All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per month-- ......................... .-- ---- --,.........- .............60

$ 1.20 .95 .70

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the dis count for prom pt p aym ent if bills are paid w ithin ten days of th eir date.

M INIM UM BILL: The minimum m onthly bill shall be $0.85.

D ocket N um ber 392-A
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
R E : Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of Georgia
BY TH E COM MISSION: T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies
operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be re duced a n d /o r eliminated.
T he Georgia Public U tilities Corp., filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Company.
51

The Commission has considered all of the evidence and the record before it pertain
ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by the Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t th e same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set fo rth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju s t and com m ensurate w ith th e cost of rendering said service, and with the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to the Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of Brunswick to be come effective on m eter readings on and after F eb ru ary 1, 1935.

BY O RDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cem ber 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W lL H O IT , C hairm an.

TO GEORGIA PUBLIC U T ILITIES CORP.:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determined th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th a t said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after F eb ru ary 1, 1935, for consum ption of gas betw een Jan u a ry 1, 1935 and F eb ru ary 1, 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith th is Commission in accordance herewith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P., W lL H O I T , C hairm an.

EXHIBIT "A"

For th e first 2,000 cu. ft. used per month. For th e first 3,000 cu. ft. used per month. All over 5,000 cu. ft. used per m onth___ _

.$ 1.50 1.20 1.10

All bills calculated on th e above rates are subject to a discount of ten (10j) cents p er 1,000 cubic feet, if paid on or before th e 10th day of th e m onth.

M IN IM U M C H A R G E: $1.00 per m onth per m eter.

52

D ocket N um ber 392-A

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

RE: Gas C ompanies Operating in the State of Georgia

BY TH E COM MISSION:
T he Commission on Ju n e 4, 1934, issued a rule nisi directed to all Gas Companies operating under its jurisdiction to show cause why gas rates should not be reduced and all extra charges for services, by w hatever name the same may be called, should not be reduced and/ or eliminated.

The A tlanta Gas Light Company filed its answer, and hearings were duly conducted under the rule nisi. The record as made, consists of both oral and docum entary evidence. The investigation covered all pertinent phases of gas rates, charges and service of the Com pany.

The Commission has considered all of th e evidence and th e record before it pertain ing to said Company, and upon such consideration, finds th a t the rates and charges now in force by th e Company are excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and th a t th e same should be reduced.

The Commission further finds th a t the schedule of rates and charges for said service set forth as an exhibit to its Order hereon, is reasonable, ju st, and com m ensurate w ith the cost of rendering said service, and w ith the reasonable value of said service to the public, and will afford adequate compensation to the Companies rendering said service, and th a t an order in accordance herewith should issue applicable to the City of A tlanta and Vicinity to become effective on m eter readings on and after F ebruary 1, 1935.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

P. J .

W lL H O IT , .

C hairm an.

TO ATLANTA GAS LIG H T COM PANY:
You are hereby advised th a t the Commission on this date made its findings wherein it determines th a t the schedule of rates and charges for Domestic and Residential con sum ption in force by your Company are unreasonable and excessive, and further finds th at said rates should be reduced in accordance with the schedule hereto attached, said rates to become effective on m eter readings m ade on and after F ebruary 1, 1935, for con sum ption of gas between Jan u ary 1 , 1935 and F ebruary 1 , 1935, subject to th e order of this Commission, and you are

O R D E R E D : To file w ith th e Commission, m onthly statem ents of your operations, gross earnings, and itemized statem ent of your expenses, including taxes, and you are

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A ND D IR E C T E D : To file tariffs w ith this Commission in accordance herwith.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this De cember 20, 1934.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

P. J .

W lL H O IT ,

C hairm an.

53

EXHIBIT "A"

SCHEDULE "O"

ATLANTA GAS LIG H T COMPANY

RATE

N et Gross

Service Charge-- per m eter, per m onth...............................1___ _______ 4i.....$ 0.60

Plus th e following charge for gas used (Per 1,000 Cu. F t.)
For th e first 1,000 cu. ft. used per month|_......................................................$ 1.10 F or th e next 2,000 cu. ft. used pter m onth,... ....................................................... 1.00 For th e next 17,000 cu. ft. used per month..TM........................................................ 60 All over 20,000 cu. ft. used per m onth............................................................. .65

$ 1.20 1.10 .70 .65

PROM PT PAYM ENT DISCOUNT
The difference between the net and gross rates stated above shall constitute the discount for prom pt paym ent if bills are paid within ten days of their date.

M INIM UM BILL: The minimum monthly bill shall be $0.65.

D ocket No. 18,825 18,212
M arch 30, 1934.
IN R E : G eneral R evision of Class and C ommodity R ates betw een P oints w ithin the State of G eorgia
BY TH E COMMISSION: The Georgia Public Service Commission, on its own initiative, issued its rule nisi on
August 17, 1933, which rule was amended Septem ber 27, 1933. U nder th e rule nisi as amended, all carriers were called upon to show cause why freight class and commodity rates between points within the State of Georgia should not be reduced.
H earing on the rule was continued by proper orders until Jan u ary 8, 1934, on which d ate all interested carriers filed appearances and th e general investigation was begun. This hearing and investigation was full and complete; it was conducted from day to day. After the completion of the carriers' testimony on general freight class rates, the investi gation on commodity rates proceeded.
After the carriers had concluded their testimony, the hearing was adjourned until M arch 5, 1934, a t which tim e witnesses who testified for th e carriers were called and cross-examined.
The shippers and the public were duly notified and attended said hearing and took a part therein by and through their duly authorized representatives.
Much historical and statistical data was placed on the record concerning the general operations of all the carriers involved.
The entire investigation, both as to class and commodity rates, has been concluded and the record closed.
The Commission now has before it for consideration said entire record, and, after full and complete consideration of the same, now proceeds to make its findings and issue an order as relates to cotton.
54

The present maximum rates prescribed by this Commission for the transportation of cotton between points w ithin th e S tate of Georgia becam e effective N ovem ber 15, 1923 (docket No. 15,416). I t is common knowledge th a t a t th e tim e docket 15,416 w ent into effect th e farm ers were receiving around 30 cents per pound for th eir cotton.
On Septem ber 6, 1932, th e Georgia Public Service Commission, in docket No. 18,212, issued an order, upon petition of the carriers, relating to the rates on cotton. The find ings of the Commission, in its opinion, recited among other things, as follows:
" A t th e tim e th e present rates were prescribed (November, 1923) by th e C om m ission__________ m otor tru ck tran sp o rtatio n was unknow n."
" The transportation of cotton by motor truck has been increasing in volume each year during the p ast five years and has made great inroads into the rail carriers' revenues. This is indicated by th e witnesses for th e A tlantic C oast Line who testified th a t five years ago the average revenue received by the A tlantic Coast Line each year on its cotton traffic was from $1,250,000.00 to $1,500,000.00, b u t th e revenue on th is traffic has been decreasing each year and for th e season ending July 31, 1932, th e to ta l revenue by th e A tlantic C oast Line on its cotton traffic was only $73,000.00. Similar testim ony was pre sented by the witnesses for the Central of Georgia Railroad and other rail carriers. The record shows th a t during the past three years the rail carriers have attem pted to hold the cotton movement to their lines by publishing com petitive rates from point to point as approved by the Commission, b u t these so-called competitive rates have only controlled th e movement to the rail lines to-a very lim ited ex tent and it is plain th a t i t is for th is reason th e carriers are proposing the very drastic reduction in this case."
" I t is th e observation of th e Commission th a t th e g reat preponderance of th e cotton now moving by motor truck creating the competition which the car riers here seek to meet, is being hauled by m otor trucks th a t do no t come under th e jurisdiction of this C om m ission..................... M any cotton dealers have purchased motor trucks and are performing their own transportation service."
In th e order of th e Commission of Septem ber 6, 1932, th e carriers were
" authorized to publish tru ck com petitive rates on co tto n to expire Ju ly 31, 1933, unless sooner cancelled, changed or extended."
Since the issuance of the above order these truck competitive rates have been, and now are, in effect in Georgia and during th e years 1932,1933 and th u s far in 1934, have been the going rates and the measure of compensation received by the carriers for the movement of cotton intrastate in Georgia. The record in the present investigation repeatedly discloses th a t this ra te is, in th e opinion of th e carriers, com pensatory and affords the only means by which the carriers have been enabled to regain and hold a ma terial portion of this class of traffic.
Georgia is prim arily and essentially an agricultural S tate and th e ability of th e people of Georgia to purchase tran sp o rtatio n is based on th e value of th e farm ers' dollar. I t is common knowledge th a t th e value of cotton on to d ay 's m arket is about 12 cents per pound; it requiring 2 pounds of cotton a t to d ay 's m arket price to re tu rn th e farm er th e same num ber of dollars th a t he received for 1 pound of cotton a t the tim e the- present m aximum rates were p u t into effect in 1923.
T he In tra sta te Commerce Commission, in a recent case, reported in 178 I. C. C., a t page 563, said:
" The relation of the general level of freight rates to the general level of com m odity prices is a factor which cannot be disregarded, particularly in a tim e of general financial prostration. S tated in another way, it means consideration of w hat th e traffic can reasonably be m ade to bear."
55

I t then quoted from the Supreme Court in the Ann Arbor Railroad Company case vs. United States:
" The causes of suffering are not only the great shrinkage in volume of business done b u t in the violent fall in the prices received for the products, a fall which has not been experienced by the carriers in the prices which they receive for their service. T he fall in th e price level in. th e case of agriculture has been of extraordinary severity so th a t m any branches of th a t industry are in a state of unprecedented collapse and pro stratio n ...................... H igh rates do n o t neces sarily m ean high revenue, however, if th e public cannot or will not ship in nor mal volume, less revenue may result th an from lower rates."
The words of the court are conclusively proven in the history of cotton rates in Georgia for, as stated above, according to the testimony of A tlantic Coast Line Railroad Company witnesses, their revenues decreased from $1,250,000.00, or $1,500,000.00 an nually to $73,000.00 annually under th e high rates prescribed in 1923, which are still th e maximum rates prescribed by this Commission and now in effect, and the rail carriers, recognizing th a t greater revenue would be derived from lower rates, requesting the Com mission to perm it them to p u t into effect truck competitive rates which still prevail in Georgia.
I t is common knowledge th a t th e rates fixed in 1923 by th e Commission were largely determined by the W ater competition existing a t th a t time. W hen w ater competition was present on the navigable streams of Georgia, rates were made to key points where competition existed.
However, the march of progress and the desire for speedier forms of transportation have practically eliminated river boats and barges, and today we find the carrier faced with a competition th a t moves on our system of highways, namely, trucks.
T ruck com petition is present and is known to be a stable, perm anent form of tran s portation th a t th e railroads m ust recognize, and it is th e opinion of th is Commission th a t rates o f a perm anent natu re m ust be prescribed th a t will lend stability to th e rail ra te structure such as will move th e traffic so th a t th e tonnage m ay be brought back to th e railroads in order th a t they may escape the present threat of financial ruin. The public is also interested to th e extent th a t contracts of th e various industries m ay be made with regard to the permanency of the rates under which commodities m ust move.
I t is the maxim of business com petition th a t th e price charged is controlling. T he car riers have literally honeycombed the continental area of the United States with truck com petitive tariffs. We fully realize th e need and im portanceof adequate railw ay facilities, how* ever the increasing num ber of truck competitive tariffs, in view of th e decline in railw ay tra f fic lost to m otor carriers, dem and th a t we point o u t th e fact th a t th e shipping public cannot be expected to w ait an indefinite period of uncertain experimentation. The com petition with motor trucks, which the carriers themselves adm it had practically des troyed their traffic in cotton until these truck competitive rates were p ut into effect by them , is perm anent. T he going rates for co tto n in th is S ta te are th e tru c k com petitive rates which the carriers established by authorization of this Commission on September 6, 1932, and which have been in effect since th a t date, and it is th e opinion of this Com mission th a t we should, by proper order, make this the maximum reasonable rate for the movement of cotton intrastate between points within this State, and thereby lend stability and perm anency to the rate which the railroads m ust use if they expect to move this commodity.
We are convinced th a t the carriers' attitude with respect to the rates on cotton indi cate th a t the experiment with this truck competitive rate has been successful and has w arranted a continuance of this rate. I t is undoubted th a t th eir revenues from this haul has materially increased since the carriers found it necessary to petition the Commission for the order permitting the rates.
We find, upon consideration of the record in this case, th a t the present schedule of rates on cotton applicable on Georgia in trastate traffic on this commodity, which were es-
56

tablished and became effective N ovem ber 15, 1923, are grossly unjust, unreasonable, ex cessive and exorbitant and should be reduced.
We further find th a t th e schedules of rates which were fixed voluntarily by th e car riers and authorized by th is Commission as tru ck com petitive rates on Septem ber 6, 1932, are just and reasonable rates for application on the movement of cotton intrastate between points within this State and are ju st and reasonable maximum rates which are commen surate w ith the value of the service rendered by the carrier and which are just and reason able to the carriers.
An order for the future will be entered in accordance w ith th e above findings.
J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

D ocket No. 18,825, 18,212.
I N R E : G en era l R ev ision of C lass and C ommodity R ates b et w ee n P oints w ithin the State of G eorgia, R ule N is i before G eorgia P ublic Service C ommission

After consideration of the record in the above stated case, and in accordance with th e opinion and findings of th is Commission, it is,

O R D E R E D : T h a t effective on and after M ay 1, 1934, and u n til fu rth er order of this Commission, the rates shown in Appendix " A", attached hereto and made a part of this order, shall be the maximum rates to be charges for the transportation of Cotton as described in Appendix " A" by all rail carriers operating in the State of Georgia, for single and joint line application.
O RD ERED F U R T H E R : T hat the joint rates prescribed in the foregoing order shall be divided on the same basis and under the same condition as prescribed in the Commis sion's order dated Decem ber 7, 1927, effective Jan u ary 15, 1928, D gcket 16,415.

Subject to further order of the Commission.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

57

APPENDIX "A" R ates on C otton, Join t and Single Line
(R a tes in c e n ts per 100 p o u n d s)__________ _______________

D istances

D escriptions

A

B

D istances

D escriptions

A

B

5 Miles._____ _

7

19

190 Miles._____

21

33

10 miles............

7

19

200 m iles

22

34

15 miles............

7

19

21 ft m ile s

23

35

20 miles______

7

19

220 m iles

24

36

25 miles___ .....

7

19

230 miles

25

37

80 miles_______

7

19

240 miles ..

26

38

35 miles_______

7

19

250 m iles

27

39

40 m ile s ...

8

20

260 m iles

27

39

45 miles............

9

21

270 m iles

29

41

50 miles...............

10

22

280 m iles

30

42

55 m ile s ...

10

22

290 m iles

31

43

60 miles............

11

23

300 m iles

32

44

65 m ile s ...

12

24

310 m iles

33

45

70 miles...............

13

25

320 m iles',

34

46

75 miles............

14

26

3 2 5 m i l e s _____

80 miles______

14

26

330 miles

35

47

85 miles............

15

27

340 m iles

36

48

90 miles............

16

28

350 m iles

37

49

95 m iles

17

29

360 miles .

38

50

100 miles............

17

29

370 m iles

40

52

105 miles............

17

110 m iles

17

115 miles......'.__

17

120 miles............

17

130 miles...............

18

29

380 m iles

29

390 m iles

29

400 m iles

29

410 m iles

30

420 m iles

42

54

43

55

44

56

45

57

47

59

140 miles...............

18

30

150 miles.............

19

31

160 miles...............

19

31

170 miles....___ _

20

32

180 m iles...............

20

32

DEFINITION OF SCALES D escrip tio n A-- Cotton (other than absorbent, carded or dyed) in bales uncompressed,
any q u antity, to go through to destination uncompressed. E xcept as. provided in N ote 1 below, rates apply for direct shipm ent on through bills of lading from origin
to destination. Cotton (other than absorbent, carded or dyed), delivered to car rier in compressed bales, any quantity. Except as provided in N ote 1 below, rates apply for direct shipm ent on through bills of lading from origin to dsetination. D escrip tio n B-- Cotton (other than absorbent, carded or dyed), in bales uncompressed, any q u antity, wi,th privilege of compression in tra n sit in accordance w ith tra n sit tariffs lawfully on file w ith th e Commission. R ates include an allowance of 12 cents per 100 pounds for compression when th e privilege of Compression is exercised. Except as provided in N ote 1 below, rates apply for direct shipm ent on through bills of lading from origin to destination. N o te 1-- R ates will also apply on cotton accorded tra n sit privileges under tariffs lawfully on file w ith th e Commission. N ote 2-- An additional charge of 5 cents per bale m ay be assessed to cover expense of un loading whenever carrier unloads or pays for unloading except a t its freight depot at destination.
58

D ocket No. 18,835, 19,131.
April 5, 1934.
IN R E : G en era l R ev ision of Class and C ommodity R ates b etw een P oints in the State of G eorgia
BY TH E COMMISSION: The Georgia Public Service Commission, on its own initiative, issued its rule nisi on
A ugust 17, 1933, which rule was am ended Septem ber 27, 1933. U nder th e rule niisi as amended, all carriers were called upon to show cause why freight class and commodity rates between points w ithin the State of Georgia should not be reduced.
H earing on th e rule was continued by proper orders u n til Jan u ary 8, 1934, on which date all interested carriers filed appearances and th e general investigation was begun. This hearing and investigation was full and complete; it was conducted from day to day. After the completion of the carriers' testim ony on general freight class rates, the investi gation on commodity rates proceeded.
After the carriers had concluded their testimony, the hearing was adjourned until M arch 5, 1934, a t which tim e witnesses who testified for th e carriers were called and crossexamined.
The shippers and the public were duly notified and attended said hearings and took a p a rt therein by and through theijr duly authorized representatives.
Much historical and statistical data was placed in the record concerning the general operations of all the carriers involved.
The entire investigation, both as to class and commodity rates, has been concluded and th e record closed.
The Commission now has before it for consideration said entire record, and, after full and complete consideration of th e same, now proceeds to make its findings and issue an order as relates to cottonseed.
The present maximum rates prescribed by this Commission for the transportation of cottonseed between points within th e S tate of Georgia have been in effect since M arch 15, 1924. T hey were prescribed by th e Commision on A ugust 30, 1923, in D ocket 15,416. T he rates so prescribed, and which have been in effect since th a t date, consisted of sepa rate mileage scales for single line hauls and jo in t line hauls.
The chronological statem ent of rates on cottonseed, C. L., effective on Georgia in tra sta te traffic since M ay 1, 1880, and as subsequently changed, is shown on th e car riers' exhibit 466.
T he record disclosed th a t th e average rail haul of cottonseed in th e Southeast is ab o u t 75 miles. This com paratively sh o rt h aul results from th e fa c t th a t crude oil mills are generally located in the cottonseed producing areas. N ot more th an 25 per cent, of th e cottonseed m ovem ent in th e Southeast is interstate.
In view of the fact th a t this average haul is only 75 miles, it necessarily develops th a t m ost of th e traffic is therefore moving under single line hauls, and th a t a m ost m inute proportion is susceptible to th e jo in t line rate. Because of th e lack of traffic m ovem ent on this commodity over joint line hauls any joint line differential would have very little effect, if any, upon the revenue of the rail carrier. A t the same time, the class rates 1 to 12 under D ocket 13,494, an d as prom ulgated by this Commission in its class ra te order of M arch 23, 1934 makes no differentiation betw een single line hauls and jo in t line hauls. This sam e statem en t is tru e w ith respect to a v a st num ber of com m odity rates in effect throughout th e South, for both interstate and intrastate application. I t is also true th a t the'param ount reason for the differential for joint line hauls over single . line hauls has been the alleged extra or added costs involved in interm ediate interchange,
59

a n d / o r yard switching. T he carriers have n o t proved th a t it is any more expensive to switch traffic divisionally than to switch the same traffic from its line to its connections. In view of th e fact th a t th e differential in favor of th e jo in t line haul is frequently ignored in a vast num ber of cases, there does not appear any particular reason why it should be m aintained as to this commodity. We, therefore, are of the opinion th a t a ju st and reasonable schedule of rates for application in the movement of this commodity should apply both for single and joint line hauls, and w ithout differential.
The record also discloses th a t prices paid for cottonseed fluctuate from year to year.
W ithout doubt, th e com paratively short haul of th e cottonseed m ovem ent is one reason why a large portion of th e traffic in this com m odity is by m otor trucks.
Loss and damage claims in connection with the shipm ent of cottonseed are negligible although this com m odity is moved in box cars m ostly for th e reason th a t, as a practical m atter, it must be kept dry.
The carriers' exhibit 492, as well as other portions of the record in this case clearly show th a t there is no uniform ity among th e present scales effective in in terstate traffic in the Southeastern Territory. The rates now in effect for interstate application in Southeastern Territory and given general application by the carriers, are entirely with out uniform ity and some are very m aterially higher than others. As an illustration of this fact, it was testified by the carriers' witness, Mr. Pope, th a t a shipment of seed from Orangeburg, South Carolina, to Augusta, Georgia, a distance of 87 miles, carried a ra te of 7.9fi per 100 pounds. This ra te is 5.6ji less th a n th e single line in tra sta te ra te in Georgia for the corresponding distance and constitutes a clear discrimination in favor of the South Carolina shipper against the Georgia shipper, equidistant from Augusta. I t was also shown th a t the scale of rates applicable on interstate traffic between many points would give generally th e same result. This is only one illustration, which m ight be m ultiplied very generally, as indicative of the fact th a t intrastate rates in Georgia should be revised, and is fu rth er conclusive of th e fact th a t th e present level of rates on this com m odity is unreasonably high and excessive.
The witness above mentioned, referred to the present rates in Georgia as "normal rates" and further testified th a t a very small percentage of cottonseed was being moved a t these rates. These tw o statem ents conflict, for a norm al ra te is such a ra te as will, under existing conditions, move the traffic and a t the same time be a ju st and reasonable rate. For distances up to 75 miles, a m ajor portion of th e volume of th e traffic in this com m odity is moving other th a n by rail carriers. A large portion of this traffic is moving by trucks.
T he Commission has heretofore, in its opinion in the class rate case, dealt a t length upon this com petitive situation and w hat was there said is forcefully borne o u t by th e adm itted situation as it relates to the movement of cottonseed. We here reaffirm what we have said in previous opinions on this subject w ithout restating it.
The Interstate Commerce Commission, in the Highland Park M anufacturing Com pany case, when discussing a num ber of th e interstate scales, said:
" The scale applicable in terstate between N o rth Carolina and South Carolina is also lower than any intrastate scale in the Southeastern Territory excepting those in N o rth Carolina and South Carolina and is lower th a n th e Georgia-Ala bama interstate scale and the Georgia-North Carolina-South Carolina inter sta te scale. T he South Carolina S tate scale is applied in terstate from and to C harleston w ith A ugusta and Savannah." (See C arriers' E xhibit 478, page 3).
The record discloses th a t th e present in trastate scales on this commodity in effect in the adjoining States are generally much lower than the present rates in effect intrastate in Georgia. Reference is m ade to carriers' exhibit 481 for th e N o rth Carolina scales; exhibit 483 for the. Florida scales; exhibit 484 for the Alabama scales and to various other exhibits for the scales and minima carload weights now in effect in intrastate State traffic in the various States in Southeastern Territory.
We have made a tabulation on which we have shown the various single line and joint line scales applied in Georgia as compared with adjoining States. For the purpose
60

of fu rth er comparisons of these rates, we have tak en th e sum of th e single an d jo in t line' scales now being applied in the States shown, and divided this sum by two for the pur pose of arriving a t an average. For convenience, we have on the tabulation designated this as a " merge scale" . This tab u latio n is attach ed hereto as Appendix 1.

This appendix shows th a t the Georgia scales applied on intrastate traffic both as to single line and joint line hauls on cottonseed are unreasonably high and should be reduced.

This Commission cannot lose sight of th e fact th a t, while it is^ tru e th a t cottonseed and its by-products have, within the past twenty years, found an increased market and th a t while during this tim e the percentage of consum ption has increased, in spite of these facts, th e cottonseed produced and hauled in Georgia is w orth no more th a n cotton seed produced in adjoining States, within which States the aforementioned appendix shows lower rates than now prevalent in Georgia. The record in this case is void of any evidence which would justify a higher rate for intrastate movement between points in Georgia on this commodity th an existing elsewhere in th e Southeastern T erritory. Geor gia is prim arily an agricultural S tate and from th e standpoint of volume of traffic in thiscommodity, as well as from the standpoint of Georgia transportation conditions, includ ing the terrain, the rate should be as low, or lower, th an for similar hauls w ithin any o f
the other Southeastern States.

We find, after due hearing and careful consideration of the entire record in this case, th a t th e present schedule of maximum rates on cottonseed, carload, application on Georgia intrastate traffic are grossly unjust, unreasonable, excessive and exorbitant, and
should be reduced.

We further find th a t the schedules of rates prescribed as just and reasonable shall be applicable for either or both, single a n d / o r joint line hauls.

An order for th e 'future will be entered in accordance w ith th e above finding.

(TABLE OF RA TES, PAGE 62.)

J . P . WlLHOIT, C hairm an.

D ocket 18,825, 19,131.

April 6, 1934.

IN R E : G en era l R evision of Class and C ommodity R ates b etw een P oints w ithin the State of G eorgia. R ule N isi before ' th e G eorgia P ublic Service C ommission

After consideration of the record in the above stated case, and in accordance with th e opinion and findings of this Commission, it is

O R D E R E D : T h a t effective on and after M ay 10, 1934, and u ntil th e fu rth er order of this Commission the rates shown in Appendix " A" hereto attached and made a part of this order shall be the maximum rates to be charged for the transportation of cotton seed, carload, as described in said Appendix, intrastate between points in the State of Georgia, by all rail carriers operating in the State of Georgia for single and joint line
application.

O RD ERED F U R T H E R : T h at the joint rates prescribed in the foregoing order shall be divided on the same basis and under the same condition as prescribed in the Commis sion's order dated Decem ber 7th, 1927, effective Jan u ary 15th, 1928, D ocket 16,415.

Subject to the further order of the Commission.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.
61

J . P . WlLHOIT, C hairm an.

APPENDIX 1j

STATEMENT SHOWING BATES ON COTTONSEED. O. L. IN GEORGIA. S. L. AND J. L. AS COMPARED WITH ALABAMA. MISSISSIPPI.

NORTH CAROLINA. SOOTH CAROLINA ANO FLORIDA. ALSO STATEMENT SHOWINGTHE AVERAGE SINGLE AND JOINT

________

LINE OR MERGED SCALE FOR GEORGIA, ALABAMA. MISSISSIPPI, AND NORTH CAROLINA.

Miles

Georgia Georgia S. L. Scale J. L. Scale

Georgia Merged
Scale

Missis?*

Alabama Alabama Alabama Mississ Mississ

ipp

S. L. Scale J. L. Scale Merged

ippi

ippi Merged

Scale S. L. Scale J. L. Scale Scale

North

North

Carolina Carolina

S. L. Scale J. L. Scale

North Carolina Merged
Scale

South

Florida

Carolina S. L. Scale

S. L. Scale

5

5.5

9.5

7.5

5

10

6.5

9.5

8

5

5 7

5 6

5 5

7 7

6 6

4.5

6.25

5.5

5.1

6.85

6

2.85

5.65

3.4

6.2

15

7

10

8.5

6

8

7

5.5

7.5

6.5

5 .6 '

7.4

6.5

3.95

6.75

20

8

11

9.5

6

8

7

6

8

7

5.65

7.4

6.5

4.5

6.75

25

9

12

10.5

7

9

8

6

8

7

6.3

7.95

7

4.5

7.35

30

10

13

11.5

7

9

8

35

10.5

13.5

12

8

10

9

40

11

14

12.5

8

10

9

45

11.5

14.5

13

9

11

10

GO

11.5

14.5

13

9

11

10

6.5

8.5

7.5

6.3

7.95

7

6.5

8.5

7.5

6.75

8.5

7.5

7.5

9.5

8.5

6.75

8.5

7.5

7.5

9.5

8.5

7.35

9.1

8

8

10

9

7.35

9.1

8

55

12

15

13.5

9.5

11.5

10.5

8.5

10.5

9.5

7.35

9.1

8

60

12

15

13.5

9.5

11.5

10.5

8.5

10.5

9.5

7.9

9.65

8.5

65

12.5

15

14

10

12

11

9

11

10

7.9

9.65

8.5

70

12.5

15

14

10

12

11

9

11

10

7.9

9.65

8.5

75

13

15.5

14.5

10.5

12.5

11.5

9.5

11.5 : 10.5

7.9

9.65

8.5

5.1 5.1
.65 6.2 6.2
7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.9

7.9 8.45 8.45 9.6
M
9.6 10.15 10.7 10.7 11.25

80

13

15.5

14.5

10.5

12.5

11.5

9.5

11.5

10.5

7.9

9.65

8.5

85

13.5

16

15

11

13

12

10.5

12.5

11.5

8.45

10.2

9.5

90 ! 13.5

16

15

11

13

12

10.5

12.5

11.5

8.45

10.2

9.5

95

14

16.5

15.5

11.5

13.5

12.5

11

13

12

9

10.75

10

100

14

16.5

15.5

11.5

13.5

12.5

11

13

12

9

10.75

10

7.9 7.9
7.9 8.45
8.45

11.85 11.85 12.4 12.95 12.95

110

14.5

17

16

12

14

13

11.5

13

12

9

10.75

10

120

14.5

17

16

12.5

14.5

13.5

12.5

14

13

9

10.75

10

130

15

17.5

16.5

13

15

14

13

14.5

13.5

9.6

11.35

10.5

140

15

17.5

16.5

13.5

15.5

14.5

13.5

15

14

9.6

11.35

10.5

150

15.5

18

17

14

16

15

14

15.5

14.5

10.15

11.9

11

9 9
9.6 10.15 10.15

13.5 13.5 14.5
14.65 14.65

160

15.5

18

17

14.5

16

15.5

14

15.5

14.5

10.15

11.9

11

10.27

15.2

170

16

18

17

15

16.5

16

15

16.5

15.5

10.15

11.9

11

10.7

15.75

180

16

18

17

15.5

17

16.5

15

16.5

15.5

10.15

11.9

11

11.25

15.75

190

16

18

17

16

17.5

17

16

17.5

16.5

10.7

12.45

11.5

11.85

15.75

200

16

18

17

16.5

18

17.5

16

17.5

16.5

10.7

12.45

11.5

11.85

15.75

210

16.5

18.5

17.5

17

18.5

18

17

' 18

17.5

10.7

12.45

11.5

220

16.5

18.5

17.5

17.5

19

18.5

17

18

17.5

10.7

12.45

11.5

240

17

19

18

18.5

20

19.5

17.5

18.5

18

11.25

13

12

260

17.5

19.5

18.5

19.5

21

20.5

18

19

18.5

11.85

13.6

12.5

280

18

19.5

19

20.5

22

21.5

19

20

19.5

11.85

13.6

12.5

12.4 12.95
13.5
14.1 14.65

15.75
15.75 15.75 16.35 16.35

300

18

19.5

19

21.5

23

22.5

20

21

320

18.5

20

19.5

22.5

24

23.5

20

21

340

18.5

20

19.5

23.5

25

24.5

21

22

360

18.5

20

19.5

24.5

25.5

25

22

23

380

19

20

19.5

25.5

26.5

26

23

24

20.5

12.4

14.15

13.5

20.5

12.95

14.7

14

21.5

12.95

14.7

14

22.5

13.5

15.25

14.5

23.5

13.5

15.25

14.5

15.75 16.35

16.35 16.35 16.9
16.9 16.9

400

19

20

19.5

26.5

27.5

27

24

25

24.5

14.1

15.85

15

420

19

20

19.5

27

28

27.5

14.65

16.4

15.5

440

19.5

20.5

20

27.5

28.5

28

14.65

16.4

15.5

460

19.5

20.5

20

28

29

28.5

15.2

16.95

16

17.45 18 18 19.2

APPENDIX "A"
MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED BY ALL RAIL CARRIERS OPERATE IN G IN T H E STATE OF GEORGIA FOR TRANSPORTATION OF COT TO N SE ED , CARLOAD, M IN IM U M W E IG H T 30,000 PO UN DS FO R SINGLE AND JO IN T LIN E APPLICATION.
R ates in cen ts per 100 P ounds.

M iles

R ate

M iles

R ate

M iles

R ate

5

5.5

80

8.5

210

11.5

10

6

85

9.5

220

11.5

15

6.5

90

9.5

240

12

20

6.5

95

10

260

12.5

25

7

100

10

280

12.5

30

7

110

10

300

13.5

35

7.5

120

10

320

14

40

7.5

130

10.5

340

14

45

8

140

10.5

360

14.5

50

8

150

11

380

14.5

55

8

160

11

400

15

60

8.5

170

11

420

15.5

65

8.5

180

11

440

15.5

70

8.5

190

11.5

460

16

75

8.5

200

11.5

D ocket No. 374-A

IN R E : G en era l R ev ision op C lass and C ommodity R ates betw een P oints in Georgia

BY TH E COMMISSION:
A rule nisi was issued by th e Georgia Public Service Commission on M ay 15, 1934, directed to all rail carriers operating under its jurisdiction to show cause on M ay 28, 1934, why freight class and comm odity rates between points w ithin the S tate of Georgia should n ot be reduced. T he rule was amended on M ay 26, 1934. H earing under th e rule nisi was postponed u n til Ju n e 11, 1934, on which d ate on m otion of counsel for th e carriers th e hearing was recessed u n til Ju n e 25, 1934.

At this hearing, the carriers through their counsel tendered the entire record and all exhibits in docket No. 18825 before th e Georgia Public Service Commission, and th e entire record made in docket No. 18825 was ad m itted in evidence for consideration by th e Commission as applicable to all carriers. The Commission then proceeded to hear evi dence both oral and documentary as it related to the subject m atter of the investigation. W hen all the pertinent evidence was in th e record was closed.

The Commission now has before it for consideration th e entire record made in said

investigation and now proceeds to make its findings and issue its order thereon as it re

lates to class rates.

k.

.

.

......

_

Briefly, the history of freight class rates applicable w ithin the State of Georgia is as

follows: T he pre-war level which was in effect prior to June 25, 1918, was by general

order No. 28 of th e D irector G eneral of R ailroads increased 25 per cent, effective on th a t

d a te . This level of class rates continued in effect u n til Septem ber 1, 1920, a t which tim e

63

th e Georgia Public Service Commission authorized a general increase of 25 per cent, on all class rates w ithin the S tate of Georgia. This order of the Public Service Commission ws in conformity w ith an order of th e I. C. C. under ex p arte No. 74. In this connection, th e Commission refers to Docket 26,000 of the I. C. C. and to th e opinion rendered by Commissioner Aitchison of th a t body, concurred in by Commissioners Porter and Lee, on Ju ly 31, 1933, which gives effect to th e tw o increases above referred to in th e follow ing language :
" B u t th e depression of 1921 showed, although less clearly th a n th e la st four years, th a t a pyram ided rate structure stifled traffic,'that its m aladjustm ents seriously impaired the buying power of the community, and by reflection
F more and more curtailed the tonnage of the rail lines."
A general 10 per cent, reduction was ordered by th e Georgia Public Service Com mission, effective Ju ly 1, 1922. T his reduction was ordered in conform ity w ith a general reduction order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which had the effect of reduc ing th e general level of class rfates in Southern te rrito ry approxim ately 10 per cent. Again referring to D ocket 26,000, supra, it was said:
" The increases in 1918 were th e result of an overwhelming dem and th a t th e railroads be p u t in a self-sufficing position; th e reductions in 1922 resulted frbm the demonstration th a t high maladjusted rates stifled business and injured shippers and carriers alike." (195 I. C. C. 75).
This rate rem ained in effect u ntil Jan u a ry 15, 1928, a t which tim e th e scale of rates prescribed by th e In te rsta te Commerce Commission in I. C. C. D ocket 13,494, Southern class rate investigation, became effective on Georgia intrastate traffic under an order of the Georgia Public Service Commission made in conformity w ith the order of the In ter state Commerce Commission. The general effect of this order in its application to class rates in th e Southern territory was expressed in D ocket 26,000, supra, in the following language:
" The Southern class rate investigation theoretically left the class rate level unchanged; in effect, it perm itted the w ithdraw al of m any lower rates and thus worked a real increase."
T he present basic ra te level in th e Southern te rrito ry is th e one resulting from th e general changes above described, modified by subsequent readjustm ents, revisions, excep tions and reclassifications.
From a consideration of the evidence in this case before the Commission and based upon the figurs given by the carriers representing the average revenue per ton mile, and which gives effect to the reductions th a t have been made to meet m otor vehicle and w ater competition, th e average level in effect today in Southern territory (Carriers' E xhibit 79, sheet 5) is approxim ately 40 per cent, higher th a n th e pre-w ar level. Of course, th e revenues per ton mile cannot be accepted as accurately reflecting freight levels b u t they m ay be considered as a fair index establishing levels. The accurate or exact level would necessarily be somewhat higher than th e one given on revenues per ton mile for the reason th a t there are thousands of special commodity rates and truck competitive rates under which most of the traffic moves and from which definite results cannot be obtained; also for th e further reason th a t the exact percentage of diversion of traffic, especially short haul, to m otor trucks and other forms of tran sp o rtatio n is n o t obtainable.
Carriers usually accept revenues per ton mile as showing in a general way rate level trends. In th e m ajority opinion in D ocket 26,000, 195, I. C. C., pages 10 and 11, th e I. C. C. showed th e average revenues per ton mile of class one railways of the country as a whole for th e years indicated. In 1916 th e revenue per to n mile of these carriers was 7-07 miles, while in 1932 th e revenue per to n mile was 10.45 miles. W ere it no t for th e fact th a t thousands of reductions of individual rates have been made to meet competition, th e average ton mile earning in 1932 should have been m aterially greater. From the above figures, th e revenue per to n mile was 47.8% higher in 1932 th a n in 1916.
64

The brief history of class rates for Southern territory above referred to and which has been developed by this Commission was based upon the data and information con tained in C arriers' E xhibits 79 and 80 of th e witness Tilford and Exhibits 134, 135, 136, 137, 149, 150 and 151 of th e witness M arks, as well as from all of th e d a ta and inform a tion contained in the record in the case before it.
T he above history of class rates in Southern T erritory and all Georgia in trastate traffic clearly establishes the fact th a t the carriers have heretofore been successful in th eir efforts to secure high rates during periods of inflation and increasing prices. I t cannot be doubted th a t th e general increase of 25 per cent, under G eneral Order No. 28 of th e D i rector General of Railroads grew out of the increase in all prices which prevailed a t th a t time. After the war and im mediately following the period of Federal control, the in crease in all prices continued. As a direct result of this general increase, th e In te rsta te Commerce Commission, under ex p a rte 74, acceding partially to th e wishes of th e car riers, granted th e second general increase of 25 per cent, which became effective Septem ber 1, 1920.
The increases above referred to are indicative of the fact th a t changes in general' level of prices upward was the basis upon which the carriers sought and obtained higher rates. The exact figures showing the general increase in wholesale prices are contained in the exhibits of th e carriers in this record. P articu lar reference is here made to th e price indices in this record shown on E xhibits 24, 25 and 26 of th e carriers and to th e docum ents therein referred to, particularly " Wholesale Prices, A ugust 1933, Serial N o. R35" of the United States D epartm ent of Labor.
As illustrative of th e change in level of prices, reference is made to C arriers' E xhibits 47, 48, 81 and 82, as well as th e exhibits above referred to. T abulations condensing some of these prices further illustrating the change in level are shown in the Commis sion's E xhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4.
D uring th e la tte r p a rt of th e year 1920 and during th e years 1921 and 1922, th e general level of prices dropped, all commodities rapidly declined and this general decline in th e level of prices was given p artial effect in th e 10 per cent, ra te reduction referred to. I t is evident th a t th e controlling facto r resulting in this 10 per cent, general reduction which becam e effective Ju ly 1, 1922, was th e general decline in prices referred to.
Georgia is prim arily and essentially an agricultural state and th e ability of th e people of Georgia to purchase tran sp o rtatio n is based on th e value of th e farm er's dollar. W ith increased farm income comes increased purchasing power resulting in increased con sum ption and increased production. T he C arriers' tonnage is directly related to con sumption and production.
We here refer to th e Commission's E xhibit 5 which is a statem en t com paring th e pre w ar and present purchasing power of th e farm er's dollar. In spite of th e fa c t th a t th e farm er's dollar when spent before th e w ar for such item s as he m ust buy is now w orth considerably less in purchasing power, this same dollar m ust be used in paying tran s portation costs under prevailing class rates a t approximately 140% of the pre-war level. The conditions affecting other industries have been alm ost as disastrous. These are m atters of common knowledge.
I t is certain th a t w hatever reduction in reduction and revenues th e carriers have experienced, they have not experienced any reduction jp the prices whiph they have re ceived for the service rendered, on the contrary there has been an increase in this price.
The changes which have taken place in this country during the past several years have been such as to excite the attention of all thinking people. Some of the expressions which clearly express the extent of the changes are not, in our opinion, inappropriate.
In the recent M innesota M oratorium Case, Mr. Chief Justice Hughes of the U nited States Supreme C ourt said th a t the General decline which has prevailed during the last few years was a m atter of common knowledge. He quoted from Justice Olsen from th e Minnesota State Court, as follows;
65

" The present nation-wide and world-wide business and financial crises has th e same results as if it were caused by flood, earthquake, or disturbance in nature. I t has deprived millions of persons in this nation of their employment and means of earning a living for themselves and their families; it has destroyed the value of and the income from all property on which thousands of people depended for a living; it actually has resulted in the loss of their homes by a num ber of our people, and threatens to result in th e loss of their homes by many other people in this State. I t has resulted in such widespread w ant and suffer ing among our people th a t private, state and municipal agencies are unable to adequately relieve tl^e w ant and suffering and Congress has found it necessary to step in and attem pt to remedy the situation by federal aid."
M r. Chief Justice Hughes after a general discussion as to the prevailing economic conditions and after having quoted approvingly as above referred to, announced a general principle based upon a consideration of th e rights of th e public. Quoting from page 241 <of th e Supreme C ourt R eporter, Voi. 54 in No. 5, Jan u ary 15, 1934, he said:
" I t is m anifest from th is review of our decisions th a t there has been a growing appreciation of public needs and of the necessity of finding ground for a ra tional compromise between individual rights and public welfare. The settle m ent and consequent contraction of the public domain, the pressure of a con stantly increasing density of population, th e inter-relation of the activities of our people and the complexity of our economic interests, have inevitably led to an increased use of the organization of society in order to protect the very bases of individual opportunity.
W here, in earlier days, it was thought th a t only the concerns of individuals, or of classes were involved, and th a t those of the state itself were touched only remotely, it has later been found th a t the fundam ental interests of the State are directly affected ;and th a t th e question is no longer merely th a t of one party to a contract as against another, b u t of the use of reasonable means to safeguard the economic structure upon which the good of all depends."
The Minnesota M oratorium Case referred to above was not a rate case but the prin ciple announced is fundam ental and includes m atters which should and m ust be con sidered by the Commission in determining w hat are ju st and reasonable rates.
The U nited States Supreme C ourt in the case of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe R y. Co. v. U nited States, 284 U. S. 248, 76 L. E d. 273, in dealing w ith th e effect of changed conditions on rates, said :
" The second petition presents a new situation, a radically different one which had been supervened since the record before the Commission had been closed in 1928. I t asserted th a t w hatever m ight be th e view of th e order when made, and upon th a t record a changed economic condition de manded reopening and reconsideration. There can be no question as to the change in conditions upon which the new rate was asked. Of th a t change we m ay take judicial notice. I t is th e outstanding contem porary fact, dom inat ing thought and action throughout the country. As the Interstate Commerce Commission said in its recent rep o rt to th e Congress, `A depression such as th e country is now passing through is a new experience to th e present genera tio n '__________ I t is plain th a t a record closed in 1928 cannot be regarded as representative of th e conditions existing in 1931."
M r. Chief Justice Hughes in a recent Supreme C ourt opinion,
(Los Angeles Gas & E lectric C orporation v. R r. Comm. 289 U. S. 287, 77 L. E d. 1180)
in referring to the economic depression which has reached to all parts of this country during the past several years used the following language:
" The country was facing a m ost serious decline in prices. I t was entering upon a period of such a depression as to constitute a `new experience to th e
66

present generation'. I t was n o t th e usual case of possible fluctuating condi tions, b ut of a changed economic level."
Therefore, in th e above case, th e Suprem e C ourt in M ay, 1933, re-affirmed th e prin ciples above quoted from the Atchison Case.
T he In te rsta te Commerce Commission in a recent case, reported in 178 I. C. C. a t page 563, said:
" The relation of the general level of freight rates to the general level of com m odity prices is a factor which cannot be disregarded p articularly in a tim e of general financial prostration. Stated in another way, it means considera tion of w hat the traffic can reasonably be made to bear."
T h at Commission then quoted from the Supreme C ourt in the Ann Arbor R. Co*case vs. T he U nited States, recently decided ip. construing th e H och-Sm ith Resolution,, and said:
" The causes of suffering are not only the great shrinkage ip volume of busi ness done, b u t in the violent fall in the prices received for products, a fa ll w hich h as n o t been experienced by th e carriers in th e prices w hich th e y receiv e fo r th e i r services. The fall in the price level in the case of agriculture has been of extraordinary severity so th a t im p o rtan t branches of th a t industry are in a state of unprecedented collapse and prostration. The situation is similar and alm ost as acute in certain other industries, and th e depression in greater or less degree extends to all--...-----High rates do n o t nec essarily mean higher revenue, however if the public cannot or will not ship in norm al volume, less revenue m ay result th en from lower rates."
I t is significant, and this Commission cannot lose sight of th e fa c t th a t th e existing: basic class rates were fixed in 1926, became effective in January, 1928, before th e begin ning of the decline and before the beginning of th e depression and th a t the results of th e general economic disaster have not thus far been reflected in a reduction of the class rat' level.
D isparity in prices tends tow ard u n stability in all business. I t is unsound and un fair economically. The increase in the level of class freight rtes on the one hand, and the general decrease in the price of all materials and commodities on the other hand, has resulted in bringing about a disparity which not only exists between the prices referred to, b u t which has likewise resulted in an existing disparity between prices of farm pro ducts received by the producer on the one hand, and prices which he m ust pay for his necessities, including transportation costs, on the other hand. A reduction in class rates would a t least in some measure have the effect of removing the disparity referred to and restore a t least to some extent a general prosperity through the medium of increased farm income, increased purchasing power, increased industrial activities, increased consump tion and general increase in carrier tonnage. The wide divergence between the general level of prices on the one hand, and th e increased cost of transportation on the other hand, over th e pre-war levels, demand rate revision downward. We are firmly convinced th a t ip keeping with the history of class rates in this state, and their relation to general economic conditions, th e present class ra te stru ctu re now in effect is unreasonably high and should be reduced. We know of no better way of expressing this principle than the words of Secretary Wallace, U. S. D epartm ent of Agriculture. H e said:
" Increased retail costs have taken up the farm ers' additional income and left him no b etter off for meeting his interest, taxes and fixed charges."
The deplorable conditions necessitated an unsual effort on the p a rt of the N ational Government to bring about a change th a t would result in improvement and general re covery. We cannot overlook th e fact th a t th e basic industry of this State, and those whoare engaged therein, is a t th e present tim e a w ard of th e Federal G overnm ent and de pendant upon it for funds with which to operate. The relation between industry and th e carrier is direct and cannot be doubted; th e inter-relations which exist betw een th e carriers and the producers have demanded the serious thought and consideration of this-
67

Commission in its effort to determine an equitable measure of w hat constitutes a ju st and reasonable level for basic class freight rates for application between points within this S ta te .

I t is self-evident th a t when any industry is dependent for its existence upon borrowed

capital th a t it has ab o u t reached th e end of its teth er, and this fact is accentuated when

it appears th a t the ordinary sources of credit are no longer available and it becomes the

object of governmental subsidy.



T here is a range w ithin which all ju s t and reasonable rates m ust come and when th e divergence betw een prices on th e one hand, an d tran sp o rtatio n cost on th e other, becomes too great, tran sp o rtatio n is curtailed, th e carriers lose th eir tonnage and resulting re venues. If transportation costs take too large a portion of the consumers' and producers' dollars, th e rates th en become prohibitive. In th e words of M r. Justice Hughes, re ferred to above:

" I t is m anifest from this review of our decisions th a t there has been a growing appreciation of public needs and of the necessity of finding grounds for a ra tional compromise betw een individual rights and public welfare________

The inter-relation of the activities of our people and the complexity of our economic interests have inevitably led to an increased use of the organization of society in order to protect the very bases of individual opportunity."

We are not only confronted with the problem above referred to, bu t under the man d a te of th e law of this State, we are charged w ith th e duty of changing and revising rates as often as th e circumstances m ay require and th e Supreme C ourt of this S tate in the case of

C ity of A tlanta v. A tlan ta Gas L ight Co. 149 Ga. 410,

said:

"I t was shown on the trial th a t on account of advanced materials, wages, the cost of operations and additions, the expenses of the corporation had increased on account of w ar conditions............I t was to m eet ju st such conditions, no doubt, th a t th e Legislature provided under th e A ct of 1879 th a t th e Com mission shall from time to tim e and as often as the circumstances may re quire, change and revise such schedules of rates. When circumstances are such th a t th e price of everything else has increased, it m ay well be said th a t the Commission may see the necessity, under the m andate of the law, of in creasing the price of gas to the consumers as being required by these circum stances."

T he converse of this statem en t is necessarily tru e.

T h a t th e general level of com m odity prices is a factor which cannot be disregarded, p articularly in a tim e of general financial p rostration, is fundam ental and has been recog nized by all of the courts and by all rate regulatory bodies.

The In terstate Commerce Commission has subscribed to this principle and said th a t the relation of the general level of rates to the general level of commodity prices m ight be stated to mean a consideration of w hat the traffic can reasonably be made to bear.

178 I. C. C., 539, (563).
T h a t this principle is n o t new is fu rth er borne o u t by th e decision of th e U nited S tates Supreme C ourt in th e M innesota M oratorium case, above referred to, as well as in numerous previous decisions of th a t court beginning w ith the case of
Sm \th v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. E d. 819,

68

affirmed in the recent case of
Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. R r. Comm, of Cal. 289 U. S. 287, 77 L. E d. 1180,
The Georgia Public Service Commission, under the construction given the Act by the Supreme Court of this State, has been made the legislative arm through which the constitutional requirem ent of preventing unjust discrimination and of establishing ju st and reasonable rates m ust be carried into effect. Its duty has been clearly stated by th e Supreme C ourt of this S tate in numerous cases. In th e case of
Southern Railway Co. v. A tlanta Stove Works, 128 Ga. 207, a t P. 219,
the court said:
" The Commission in th e discharge of its d u ty to fix reasonable rates is n o t precluded from the consideration of economic conditions recognized by the carriers in th e conduct of th eir business. T he full purpose of th e creation of th e Commission would be thw arted if it could not consider and act on every econo mic and industrial factor potentially influencing the operation of a railroad and the transportation of freight."
Impelled by the force of the m andate thus referred to, we have given careful con sideration to the history of class rates in this State in the lig h t of economic conditions re ferred to and have given careful thought, study and consideration to existing disparities, as hereip discussed, and have come to the definite conclusion th a t the establishm ent of a ju st and reasonable level of freight class rates for application on Georgia intrastate traf fic dem ands m aterial reductions.
T he record which we are now considering discloses th e fact th a t approxim ately 85 per cent, of th e present volume of all traffic is moving under specific com m odity rates and mileage scales or under tru ck com petitive rates, th a t only approxim ately 15 per cent, of th e volume of all freight traffic is moving under th e present basic scale of class rates.
I t was contended by the carriers at the hearing th a t they favored uniformity in transportation costs. We know, and the carriers know, th a t the general effect of a great num ber of the commodity rates and of all of the truck com petitive rates has been to move th e traffic under rates which have virtually destroyed all semblance of uniform ity. T he effect of these voluntary reductions which have been made by the carriers, called truck competitive rates with expiration dates, have not had any degree of uniformity nor any relationship towards the bearing of their proportionate p a rt of the transportation burden, and other commodities which have not received reductions are called upon to bear exces sive burdens. To p u t this in th e words of a member of th e In terstate Commerce Com mission, it is expressed as follows :
" M any im portant commodities have not been beneficiaries of these so-called competitive reductions and every effort of management has been to maintain the high level of rates upon them . Generally those commodities which are closest to th e soil-- agricultural products, fruits, lum ber and its products, and coal--have been considered as " tied to the rails" and every effort has been made to adhere to the standard rate scale so th a t relatively they have been compelled to bear the greatest proportion of the transportation burden. B ut these commodities are the products of industries which, by reason of the econo mic conditions shown by the record and portrayed in the report, are the least able to bear the transportation costs for other, more highly developed, forms of industry. The a tte m p t to force them to do so has contributed to th eir econo mic prostration; it has lessened th e purchasing power of those engaged in or dependent upon such industries, it has decreased the tonnage of the rail car riers in both the basic commodities purchased, and the incidental commodi ties necessary for the sustenance of the industries. The general effect of the high price levels for rail transportation has been to localize production and
69

distribution, and to force the producers' and distributors' margins to the vanish ing point, and thus to decrease the movement by rail. The situation has encouraged, even demanded, recourse to other forms of transportation which can be had a t a lesser m onetary price, wherever possible............ Such unfavor able results as to these basic industries have im mediate effect upon the whole industrial, financial, and political fabric of the N ation. T h at the attem pt to m aintain the relatively high levels of rates which have obtained upon these commodities has thus affected the industries, there can be no doubt; to a measurable, if not major, extent, the national paralysis of industry and credit finds here a contributing factor of im portance............A t th e same time, by holding out a degree of stability in the structure which would follow, the rail carriers and shippers would know on w hat basis they might count, and could safely proceed with long term commitments, now withheld because of un certainty as to th e future rate basis. The extension of competing forms of tran sp o rt into new fields, now occupied by th e rail carriers, would be dis couraged. D istribution areas would be widened, there would be a sharply lessened disparity between commodity prices and freight prices, and the re lation between them, which was rudely disturbed by the slump in commodity values, would be brought more closely to th a t valance which students generally adm it m ust be reached in tim e." (195 I. C. C., p. 78, 79 and 80).
And again:
" The case leaves me convinced th a t the great residue of freight rates of the country as to which reductions have not already been forced, as for competi tive reasons, stand upon an unreasonably high level. For the best interests of the rail carriers themselves, to ameliorate the distressing conditions affect ing industry, and to further the far-reaching plans for national industrial re covery which have been p u t under way, those railroad freight rates which now stand as pinnacles far above their pre-war levels should be brought more into line with rates which have resulted from the process of wholesale and often indiscriminate reductions made to meet competition with other forms of trans port, or in war-fare between th e railroads them selves." (195 I. C. C., p. 73).
And again:
" The successful consummation of the policies and plans now under way calls for a rate structure better adapted to w hat the traffic can bear and w hat it will bear an d n o t adherence to schedules w hich sim ply force tonnage to o th e r fo rm s o f tra n s p o rt, s h u t i t off fro m m o v e m e n t, or compel the re location of ind u stry ." (195 I. C. C. p. 80).
And again:
" All traffic is now potentially com petitive; none is `tied to th e rails'. A prom pt recognition of this fact and ad justm ent of policy to correspond is needed if th e earn in g s of th e carriers are to be k e p t a t th e ir p resen t levels, m e a g e r as th e y a re , in short, the attem pt to maintain rates on these supposedly noncom petitive commodities on th eir present pinnacles will merely c o m p e l th e developm ent and use of th e less expensive means of tran s port. Such rates exceed the worth of the service, and cannot be m aintained. T h e y h a v e n e it h e r leg a l n o n e c o n o m ic w a r r e n t ." (195 I. C. C., p 78.)
And again:
" The reason for the comparatively slight reduction in average ton-mile earn ings, from 11.27 mills in 1922 to 10.45 mills in 1932, are to be found elsewhere than in the b asis r a te sc h e d u le s, and might result from any or many of o th er causes............ In th e main, th e reduction in ton-m ile revenue reflects principally reductions made by the railway traffic managers in their efforts to save traffic or to regain tonnage lost to the new and competing forms of tra n sp o rt............ The change conditions have made m a i n te n a n c e o f t h e b a sic ra te s im p o ssib le as goin g tariffs.
70

R ate schedules which were justifiable under former conditions as reasonable would no longer move the traffic; they had to be cut. Reluctance to recognize this resulted in the rails standing by while traffic was diverted to competing forms of transport, reduc tions which if prom ptly made, m ight have saved tonnage, were made tard ily and i;n insufficient am ounts; often when reductions were m ade they were so restricted by ex piration dates or territorial limits as m erely to w a rn c o m p e tito rs to redouble their efforts to some section where the railways perferred the maintenance of a nominal rate level to making reductions which would retain traffic." (195 I. C. C., p. 77).
And again:
" The flood of tariffs during th e p ast few m onths bearing `reduction' symbols, th e thousands of application for au th o rity to make reduced effective on less than statutory notice; the hundreds of application for relief from long-andshort-haul provisions of Section 4, of th e act, all indicate a definite policy of rate reductions on com petitive traffic, alm ost desperate in its n atu re." (195 I. C. C.. p. 77).
The last named quotations were taken from the dissenting opinion of Commis sioner Aitchison, concurred in by Commissioners P orter and Lee, Commissioner Eastm an not participating in the disposition of the case. The principles announced and quoted from are too logical and convincing to argue. The facts in this record and the experience of the carriers dem onstrate the tru th of the statem ents beyond reasonable and logical contradiction. T hey are emphasized by th e fact th a t, since this decision was w ritten in. July last year these competitive tariffs have continuously increased in number, in terri torial application, and in extent. In the m eantim e the loss of tonnage to the carriers has continued to increase u ntil th e situation is desperate to th e carriers. This Commission is convinced of the logic and reason of th e principles announced and desires to add em phasis thereto.
The experience of the carriers themselves, as indicated by the evidence and par ticularly E xhibits Nos. 84 and 85, is conclusive to th e Commission th a t rail carriers recognize th e fact th a t th e decline in th eir freight traffic is largely due to excessive ra te s rath e r th a n economic conditions. T he statem en t above referred to is further fortified, in our opinion, by the statem ent of the Interstate Commerce Commission in D ocket No. 23,400 reported in 182 I. C. C., 327, as follows:
" In th e last five years nearly 75 per cent, of all applications for certificates to abandon rail operations have mentioned motor competition as a factor."
I t is a maxim of business com petition th a t th e price charged is controlling. T he carriers have literally honeycombed the continental area of the United States with truck com petitive tariffs and w ithout any regard to " Southern" , " Official" , or any other regional territory. We fully realize the need and importance of adequate railway facilities. However, th e increasing num ber of truck competitive tariffs, in view of the decline in railway traffic, lost to motor carriers, demand th a t we point out the fact th a t the shipping public cannot be expected to aw ait an indefinite period of uncretain experimentation. The competition, which has been referred to by the carriers as the basis upon which truck com petitive rates are established, is perm anent. The means for using this form of com petition is on th e increase and while we are fully aw are of th e fact th a t tru ck com petitive rates are established voluntarily by the carriers by permission of rate regulatory bodies, we are also convinced th a t a t least to some extent the shipping public in choosing the m ethod of service, measures the value of th a t service by its choice.
I t is th e opinion of this Commission th a t th e falling off of th e revenue of th e railroads to th e point indicated in th e record is due to th e hesitancy w ith which th e railroads have attem pted to meet this competition and the unsatisfactory manner in the form of com petitive rates with expiration dates which have lead th e public to the belief th a t the railroads intended to reduce their rates temporarily strike down truck competition and return to the high rates they had previously exacted from the public who were forced to use the rails for lack of other forms of transportation.
71

T ruck com petition is present and is recognized as a stable, perm anent form of tran s portation th a t the railroads m ust recognize, and rates of a perm anent nature m ust be prescribed th a t will lend stability to th e rail rates th a t move th e traffic in order th a t tonnage may be brought back to the railroads th at they may escape the present threat of financial ruin.
T he Emergency T ransportation Act of 1933 provides:
" In the exercise of its power to prescribe ju st and reasonable rates the Com mission shall give due consideration, among other factors, to the effect o f r a te s o n th e m o v e m e n t o f th e tra ffic ; to the need, in the public interest, of ade quate and efficient railway transportation a t th e lo w est c o st c o n s is te n t w ith th e fu rn is h in g o f s u c h service; and to the need of revenues sufficient to enable the carriers u n d e r h o n e s t, eco n o m ical a n d efficien t m a n a g e m e n t, to provide such service." (T itle 49 U. S. C. A. Sec. 15 (a) 2).
The first two factors specified are elements to be considered in determining the value of the service to the shipper, and cannot be ignored. If they are to be given any effect, the whole experience of th e carriers and shippers demand a reduction in the basic ra te level. The foregoing opinion is replete ^Vith reasoning which establishes th e fact th a t the present basic class rates exceed the value of the service to the shipper and are, therefore, in excess of just and reasonable rates and should be substantially reduced. T h e right of th e carriers is necessarily lim ited to a retu rn earned w ithout th e im position of rates which exceed the bounds of a reasonableness, especially when it has been con clusively shown by the experience of the carriers th a t a reduction in rates actually in creases their revenues. We think th a t the weight to be given the respective factors de pends upon the facts presented in each case and th a t in this case the facts presented by th e record demand a consideration of the first two factors named. There can be no question as to this.
The present freight rate structure was built up under conditions of virtual railway monopoly. Conditions, however, have changed and by this change have practically elim inated th e m ovem ent of goods under th e present maximum reasonable rates. I t is our opinion th a t we should, by proper order, lend stability and permanency to a set of rates th a t would return tonnage to the carrires, perm it business within this state, and remove discriminations. We are fortified in this position by numerous recent rulings of th e I. C. C. to the effect th a t voluntary and competitive rates p u t in by the carriers have a direct relation to the reasonableness of rates, and a t least to some extent may be ac cepted as a measure of ju st and reasonable rates. The United States Supreme Court has given full effect to the tru th of this Statem ent in the case of
Skinner and Eddy v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 565.
T h at court, after referring to two decisions of the I. C. C. said:
" The Commission's power over th em (rates) in this respect extends no fu rth er than to discourage the making of unduly low rates by applying deterrents. One such deterren t is found in th e fact th a t low rates, because voluntarily es tablished by the carrier, may be accepted by the Commission as evidence th a t other rates, actual or proposed, for comparable service are unreasonably high."
In 1893, im m ediately following th e panic of 1892, some N ebraska farm ers filed a suit which was finally decided by the United States Supreme C ourt in
Sm yth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466.
In th a t case the court, speaking through Mr. Justice H arlan announced the principle th a t the public had a right to dem and th a t th e rates be no higher th a n th e service is reasonably worth in the light of existing conditions. This principle has been reaffirmed from time to tim e by the United States Supreme Court and has been given full effect in th e Los Angeles case, the M innesota M oratorium case and in other recent Supreme Court
72

decisions. The Interstate Commerce Commission in some of its early decisions, for ex ample, 2 I. C. C. 618, 636 and 3 I. C. C. 473, said:
" The value of th e service is generally regarded as th e most im p o rtan t factor in fixing rates and carriers in making returns cannot arrange th em from an exclusive regard to their own interests, b u t they m ust regard the interests of those who may have occasion to employ their service, and subordinate their own interests to the rules of relative equality and justice."
T he problem of this Commission, as well as of other ra te regulatory bodies, is to attem p t to find an equitable yardstick to be used in measuring a level of just and reason able rates and in determining rational compromise ground, in appreciation of the needs of the carriers and of the public, upon which the conflicting interests should and m ust meet. The continuance of an adequate national transportation system demands th a t rates be fixed upon a level th a t will move th e traffic. This is for th e carriers' benefit. R ates m ust be prescribed upon a level th a t will distribute the burden of th e depreciation between the carriers on the one hand and the public on the other hand.
The raising of rates does not necessarily increase revenues and the lowering of rates does not necessarily reduce revenues. Th expression of the U nited States Supreme C ourt in the recent case of
Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 214-215, 75 L. E d. 313.
is significant. We quote from it as follows:
" The raising of rates does not necessarily increase revenue. I t may in par ticular localities reduce revenue instead of increasing it, by discouraging patronage. (R ailroad Commission V. Chicago B. & Q. Co. 257 U. S. 563; 63 L. E d. 271)............ Witnesses for th e Florida intervenors testified th a t any material increase in the Florida intrastate freight rates would cause them to move their plants to the tim ber or abandon operations, and th a t in either event th e operator would lose considerable traffic."
In this connection and in furtherance of this statem ent, the record in this case dis closes many instances where commodities failed to move because of transportation costs.
We may sum up the fact of a situation like this upon the carriers and upon those who purchase transportation service as follows: The effect upon the tonnage of the carriers is felt in a t least th ree separate and distinct ways. F irst, a loss of tonnage result ing from reduced consum ption of any p articular article or comm odity so affected. T his loss is m easured by th e am ount of th e reduction in th e consum ption of th e particular comm odity; second, loss of tonnage resulting from curtailed production brought about by lowered income. Any curtailm ent of production, particularly in an agricultural state, seriously affects the volume of tonnage moved by the carriers; third, loss of ton nage which results from the inability on the p a rt of the consuming public to purchase th e articles needed and useful to them . This inability necessarily follows decreased in come and lowered purchasing power.
On the other hand, th e effect of such a situation on the p a rt of the consuming public is felt and realized; first, in lowered income w ith a resulting lowered purchasing power; second, lessened consum ption of all commodities, including such articles as the carriers must transport.
These inter-relations are self-evident and m ust necessarily be reflected in any equit able rate structure or rate level.
T he evidence before th e Commission disclosed th a t th e present basic class rates in ef fect in Southern Territory (Southern territory comprises these states east of the Mississ ippi R iver South of th e Ohio and Potom ac Rivers) are on a much higher level th a n those in Official T erritory (Official Classification T erritory comprises those states east of a line
73

drawn from Chicago to Saint Louis, thence following the Ohio and Potom ac Rivers to the Atlantic), A number of facts were produced by way of comparing certain conditions in the two territories. These facts were produced by the carriers and by the Commis sion's testim ony and exhibits.
The existing tran sp o rtatio n conditions, betw een these two territories i,n our opinion, do not w arrant the existing difference in the level of rates.
Since th e advent of th e railroad th e states in Official T errito ry have enjoyed a much more favorable freight rate than the states located in Southern Territory. The reason for this difference in freight rates is a ttrib u te d by th e carriers to th e difference in traffic density in the two territories, and this factor should be given some weight. Highly densely settled territory means probable increase in tonnage over a lesser densley settled territory. However, it m ust be borne in mind th a t land values are higher and more ex pensive road bed and equipm ent are required where traffic density is high th a n in te rrito ry w ith low traffic density. From example, Ohio, with an area of 40,700 square miles, has eight cities of over 100,000 population, through which her railroads m ust ru n and in which they must m aintain expensive terminal facilities, while Georgia, with an area of 58,725 square miles has only one city w ith a population of over 100,000. The carrier operating in Ohio m ust therefore have a much greater investm ent in property to con duct its business than a like carrier operating in Georgia would necessarily have, and th e am ount invested to carry on th e service is another factor th a t m ust be given weight in fixing maximum reasonable rates. Lum ber for cross ties and construction, which is quite an item in railroad expense is cheaper in Southern T errito ry and especially in Georgia, than in N orthern Territory, and climatic conditions in the South are far more favorable to railroad operation. The expense of removing heavy snows from the right-of-way or freezes interfering w ith traffic is an unheard of railroad expense in Georgia and is a con siderable item in Official T erritory.
Definite facts and figures in support of the tru th of the foregoing statem ents are found in the record in this case. For example, the tax accrual per mile of road as shown by th e Commission's E xhibit No. 32, for th e year 1932 were much greater for th e fourteen representative roads nam ed in th e exhibit operating in Official T errito ry th a n for th e ten principal class one roads operating in Georgia. The Delaware Lackawanna Railway Com pany operating in Official T errito ry in 1932 had a tax accrual per mile of road of $5,225.00, which was 11.2% of the railway operating revenues for th a t year and th e Southern Railway system had a tax accrual of only $949.00 per mile of road, which was only 8.4% of the gross operating revenues for the same year.
In this connection the total tax accruals for the ten principal class one roads operat ing in Georgia in 1926 was more th a n $32,000,000, for 1929 th e to ta l was more th a n $30,000,000 while in 1932 th e to ta l was less th a n $19,000,000. T he figure for 1933 was m a terially less th an for 1932.
By referring to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 34, we ascertained th a t th e average cost per cross tie is much less in th e Southern T errito ry th a n in Official T erritory. F o r example, for the year 1932 th e average cost per cross tie to th e D elaw are and H udson R ailroad Corporation was $2.37 each whUe for th e Seaboard Air Line Railway th e average cost per cross tie for th e same year was only 75 cents.
By reference to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 47 we ascertain th a t for such m ajor items as " depreciation", " maintenance", and " repairs" it appears th a t a comparison be tween the E astern D istrict, (Official T efritory), and Southern D istrict shows th a t th e Southern D istrict has a distinct advantage in such items as " signals and interlockers", "power plant buildings" , "power distributor systems", " miscellaneous structures" . The one item " rem oving snow, ice and sand" for th e E astern D istrict in 1932 was $1,668,151 against $124,474 in th e Southern D istrict; th e item " injuries to persons" was $1,133,397 in th e E astern D istrict against only $257,066 in th e Southern D istrict; and th e item of " insurance" was $1,761,129 in th e E astern D istrict agam st only $427,519.00 in th e South ern D istrict. The item of "crossings and signals" was $2,120,707 for the E astern D istrict against $486,531 for th e Southern D istrict. U nder th e general head " repairs" th e item of " Floating equipm ent" for th e year 1932 was $2,223,106 for th e E astern D istrict against $129,779 for th e entire Southern D istrict.
74

The above illustrations could be multiplied many times over and clearly indicate some of the numerous ways in which the Southern Territory has a distinct advantage over th e Official T erritory in items of operating expense which would offset m any differences in traffic density.
The Commission's E xhibit No. 48 likewise shows th e com parable figures for " to ta l general expenses" , " superintendence", etc.
From the standpoint of topography, th e S tate of Georgia has an advantage over Offi cial T erritory. T he general terrain in Georgia is n o t as uneven as th a t which prevails in Official T erritory according to averages. T he larger portion of th e S tate of Georgia con sists of coastal plains and level lands which reach beyond the foothills and extend to the m ountainous section of north Georgia. The Southern p art of the Allegheny range ex tends into th e northern p a rt of th e state, T he topographical advantage is directly related to expense for construction of way, and the more level the country traversed by the car rier, th e less expenditure is required for this purpose. T he same percentage of grade m ay be obtained a t a less cost to th e carrier and th e operation of train s from th e standpoint of th e size of th e locom otive required and from th e stan d p o in t of fuel consum ption may be carried on a t less expense to the carrier. In uneven territory such as prevails through out the Allegheny range generally, the carriers are required to do more grading, tunnelling,
etc.
T he intense cold in th e n o rth (Official T erritory) requires a considerable investm ent in many instances th a t are unnecessary in the mild climate in this State. The denser traffic condition of which the carriers speak in their evidence, necessitates the expenditure of a large am ount of additional capital made necessary by the construction of double line mileage tracks and likewise increases th e item of m aintenance of way. This added capital and this added expense of m aintenance will necessarily make large inroads into the operating revenue and capital outlays of the carriers and in a great measure, a t least, offset the claimed benefits of increased density of traffic and population.
In more densely populated areas the carriers are required to either expend additional outlays to construct grade crossing eliminations or to provide additional employees to be used as watchmen; th e more densely populated areas will likewise necessitate additional capital outlays and expenses in numerous other ways than those named above.
We also refer to th e item " repair costs" in its relation to locomotives. I t is one of great im portance and involves a large am ount of th e operating expenses. The record discloses th a t the aggregate investm ent of class one railways in steam locomotives, taking th e ledger value, was on O ctober 1, 1933, $1,717,697,850.00 and this am ount approxim ately represented w hat th e railways expended in five years for repairs. The repairs for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 is shown by th e record in this case to be $1,190,669,000. T he record also discloses th a t th e item " cost of repairs" per horse power u n it increases with increased age of the locomotive. The average age-of-use for the Southern D istrict was only 11.93 years against 13.99 years by th e E astern D istrict. W here th e mileage between general repairs is greater th e repair cost is m aterially less. The record disclosed th a t th e average mileage between general repairs for locomotives in th e Southern D istric t is 86,835 miles against only 68,158 miles for th e E astern D istrict. T he S outhern D istrict locomotives, therefore, make 27.4% more miles between general repairs th a n the locomo tives in ordinary use in th e E astern D istrict. This inform ation referred to is shown in th e Commission's evidence in th e record and on th e Commission's E xhibits Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. T he average cost of repairs per horse power u n it for th e Southern D istrict is shown to be $1.0952 and for th e E astern D istrict $1.4756. T he average cost of re pairs per locomotive mile was 21.4 cents in th e Southern D istrict against 28.4 cents for th e E astern D istrict. Here, again, th e tran sp o rtatio n condition is m aterially more favorable in th e Southern D istrict when com pared w ith th e E astern D istrict or Official Territory.
The operating ratios of the class one railways for the year 1932 was shown by the re cord to be as follows: For the Southern D istrict (freight service), including the Pocahuntas Region, the operating ratio was 63.71; for th e E astern D istrict the operating ratio (freight service) was 68.22. (See Commission's E xhibit No. 27).
75

The record in this case is replete w ith operating statistics which accurately reflect a comparison of the operating conditions between the Southern Territory on the one hand and Official T erritory on th e other hand. The ten principal class one roads operating in Georgia and th e fourteen representative roads operating in Official T erritory which were selected are com pared as to th e to ta l tonnage on th e Commission's E xhibit No. 28. R elated averages and u n it costs are shown on th e Commission's E xhibit No. 29. These averages cover th e five years, 1928 through 1932. T he record discloses th a t, as a rule, th e longer haul traffic is more desirable th a n th e short haul traffic and in this connection by referring to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 29, th e average haul in th e Southern Dis tric t for th e year 1932 was 235.7 against 164 miles for th e E astern D istrict. T he to ta l freight expense per freight gross to n mile, including non revenue to n miles, for th e year 1932 was $2.28 in th e Southern D istrict against $2.82 in th e E astern D istrict. T he to ta l freight wages, fuel, supplies and engine house expense per freight tra in mile in 1932 was only 74 cents in th e Southern D istrict against 99 cents in th e E astern D istrict. T he road freight wages, fuel, supplies and engine house expenses per freight car ton mile, including non revenue to n miles, for th e year 1932 in th e Southern D istrict was .444 cents against .525 cents in th E astern D istrict.
Reference is made to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 46 for a num ber of operating averages of class one steam railw ays by districts for th e year 1932. The origin per to n of freight for th e Southern D istrict was $2.051 and for th e E astern D istrict $1.740. T he n et ton miles, revenue and non revenue, per train haul was 11,563 for th e Southern Dis tric t against 11,170 for th e E astern D istrict and th e percent which th e n et to n miles was of gross to n miles is shown to be 43.9 for th e Southern D istrict against only 40.5 for th e E astern D istrict. The net ton miles per loaded car mile, revenue and non revenue, was 29.8 for the Southern D istrict against 25.8 for the E astern D istrict and the car miles per freight car day was 21.8 in th e Southern D istrict against 17.1 in th e E astern D istrict. T he net ton miles, revenue and non revenue, per freight car day was 388 in th e Southern D istrict against 267 in th e E astern D istrict.
By reference to th e Commission's E xhibits Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, com para tive averages between the principal class one roads operating in Georgia on the one hand and th e representative roads in Official T erritory on th e other hand are shown.
T he Commission's E xhibit No. 42 sets fo rth com parative averages relating to freight traffic between the principal class one roads operating in Georgia on the one hand as com pared w ith th e representative roads in Official T erritory on th e other hand. T he average haul per revenue to n of freight is shown on this exhibit and th e revenue per freight ser vice train mile. This exhibit also shows the revenue per loaded freight car mile, the revenue per ton mile of freight, and the revenue per ton of freight of the ten principal class one Georgia roads on th e one hand as com pared w ith th e 14 representative roads on th e Official T errito ry on th e oth er hand. These com parative averages indicate th a t th e level of rates in th e Southern D istrict is m aterially higher th a n in Official T erritory and th a t the operating average does not w arrant any such difference in rate levels.
In this connection, the Interstate Commerce Commission, in a num ber of recent cases, has been confronted with numrous problems arising due to the difference in the class ra te levels which prevail in Southern and Official T erritory.
Commissioner E astm an, of th e In te rsta te Commerce Commission in I. & S. D ocket 3127, reported in 156 I. C. C. 117, a t page 134, said:
"In my judgm ent, transportation conditions are, on the average, somewhat more favorable in Official th a n in Southern T erritory, b u t th e difference is n o t as great as is commonly supposed, and is by no m eans as g reat as th e exist ing difference between th e levels of th e class rates in th e tw o territories............ I think it would be better if there were no such difference, for it causes a great m any complications and controversies with which we are called upon to deal and which would not arrise if the two rate structures were similarly designed."
In Southern Sugar Investigation, 142 I. C. C. 459, th e Commission said a t page 461:
" However, as we have pointed out in other cases, this difference in the level of th e class rates in th e two territories (Southern and Official) is greater th a n
76

the difference in average transportation conditions, and because of this factr commodity rates are relatively more numerous and in general lower, compared w ith the class rates in Southern th a n in Official T erritory. T he result is th a t in th e case of m any commodities moving in volume there is no great difference in the level of the going rates in the two territories and in some cases the Southern rates are the lower."
In I. & S. D ocket No. 3660, " R ates on B riston and N o rton Lines of N drfolk & W est ern R ailw ay", reported in 1921. C. C. page 315, Commissioner E astm an said, a t page 324 of the opinion:
" The m arked difference betw een th e class-rate stru ctu re in Official T erritory and the class-rate structure within Southern Territory and between the two territories presents an exceedingly troublesome and difficult rate problem. We have heretofore remarked, on more than one occasion, th a t the difference in levels in favor of Official T erritory, is n o t justified by th e difference in tran sp o rtatio n conditions, or a t least only in p a rt. I t is ra th e r an outgrow th of historical conditions and a difference in the development of the entire rate fabrics of the two territories in past periods when there was little regulation and much less com m unity of interest and of action between railroads in differ ent territories, and even in parts of the same territory, than now exists."
Commissioner Tate in the same case said:
" I t is my opinion th a t w hatever th e Commission would do in th e above named investigation and suspension case, No. 3660, would be far from ideal, and th e explanatipn for this statem ent of my individual opinion is to be found in m y belief th a t th e class rates fixed for Official Classification T erritory and those fixed for Southern Classification T erritory are so improperly related th a t it is impossible to do exact justice u n til th a t relationship is changed."
We concur in the statem ents referred to to the effect th a t the difference in levels in favor of th e Official T erritory is no t justified by any existing difference in tran sp o rtatio n conditions, and certainly it cannot be argued or contended even by th e carriers^ them selves th a t a higher level of rates for Southern T erritory can be justified, if th e ability of those who use this service, in the south, to pay for it is given any consideration w hat soever. We are confident in making the statem ent th a t it cannot be logically or equitably urged th a t th e value of this class of service is greater in th e S tate of Georgia under th e existing conditions th a n it is in Official T erritory. On th e contrary, th e cost of rendering this service in Georgia should not, ought not, and we think it will not be greater, under proper managem ent, th a n in rendering like service in Official T erritory.
Agricultural products, or products of the farm, have always been given rates within the lowest zone of reasonableness. The preponderence of the movement of these pro ducts in th e Southern T erritory is another reason why th e difference in th e ra te level existing between the two territories should be materially lessened or entirely removed. In this connection reference is m ade to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 40, which shows th e percent of to ta l tonnage carried represented by products of agriculture, carload, for th e year 1932 for th e te n principal class one roads operating in Georgia when com pared w ith the fourteen roads operating in Official T erritory. T he Commission's E xhibit No.. 45 shows the to tal freight traffic originated, freight traffic term inated, to ta l freight tariffs carried, products of agriculture, by regions, for th e calendar year 1932. This e x h ib it likewise shows th e total freight revenue dollars derived from the movement of products-of agriculture. For the Southern Region the revenue from the products of agricultureconstitute 21.7% of the total freight revenue dollars while in the N ortheastern Region the revenue from the products of agriculture constitute only 16.7% of the total freight revenue dollars.
By reference to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 44, which supplem ents its E xhibit No. 40, the im portance of*the traffic in products of argiculture to th e Southern carrier is emphasized. T he Southern Region or T errito ry is originating a com parative greaterpercentage of th e to ta l tonnage carried th a n is th e E astern T errito ry . T his indicates;
77

th e fact th a t Southern T errito ry is n o t only an agricultural section b u t is a producing section which produces commodities which m ust be consumed by the more densely popu lated areas of the country. If rates are such as to depress the movement in this kind of traffic the scarcity of the commodity a t the consuming point controls the price and the price controls consumption and brings about many economic changes. The im portance of th e traffic in this group of commodities is therefore emphasized as it relates to th e carrier, th e shipper, and to th e consumer. By referring to subsection (g) of th e Commis sion s E xhibit No. 40, P a rt I, Sheet 2, and P a rt II, Sheet 2, th e percent of traffic originated to to ta l traffic carried for th e years 1931 and 1932 shows th a t for th e te n principal class one roads operating in Georgia this percentage is very m aterially higher th a n for Official T erritory roads. The level of rates in the Southern Territory m ust be on a basis th a t will perm it the traffic to move from the producing section to the consuming section. In this there is a distinct advantage to th e carrier, to th e shipper, and to th e consumer. Here again the Southern Region has a distinct advantage over th e Official T erritory in th a t the rates established for th e movem ent of to ta l volume of traffic in which is included a major percentage of the commodities coming within th e lowest zone of reasonableness, m ust come within this lowest zone of reasonable rates.

The carriers have not given to the Commission the various costs involved in con nection w ith the rendition of the service b u t have introduced in evidence some calcula tions based on experience figures, theories, investments, etc., which purport to cover the yard and term inal costs of handling L. C. L. merchandise. The theory upon which the
figures are based is very indefinite and is of little w orth to th e Commission in its effort to solve the problem now before it.

T he Commission's E xhibits Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 give a num ber of u n it re venues and expenses, expense averages, gross term inal expense, car miles switched, freight car repairs, freight service expense, to ta l freight expense per loaded car mile, and to ta l freight expense per tra in mile for th e class one carriers operating in Official T erritory, on the one hand, and Southern Territory on the other hand.

T he testim ony of th e Commission's rate m an fully explains th e source and reliability of the information thus furnished. The Exhibits indicate numerous instances in which th e Southern T erritory has very m aterial and distinct advantages over th e Official T erri tory. The selected I. C. C. statistics of all freight, car load and less car load for th e year 1932 as shown by E xhibit 15 when com pared w ith th e E xhibits im m ediately following indicate to the mind of the Commission th a t by comparison th e basis class rate level in Southern T erritory is much higher th a n w arranted when com pared w ith th e level in Official T erritory. T he present level in effect in Southern T errito ry is approxim ately 27% higher th a n in Official T erritory. T he E xhibits 15 to 20 when tak en in connection with the other elements referred to in this order, and when taken in connection with the entire record in this case clearly and conclusively show th a t there are not transportation conditions w arranting any such difference.

E xhibit 15 shows th a t operating expenses and taxes per thousand n et to n miles in

th e Southern D istrict, is only $6.26 while for th e E astern D istrict th e figure is $8.29.

For one thousand gross ton miles the operating expenses and taxes for th e Southern

D istrict are $2.23 and for th e E astern D istrict $2.71. T he figures for th e m arginal road

haul cost shown in this Exhibit also reveal th e fact th a t these costs are very m aterially

lower for the Southern D istrict th a n for th e E astern D istrict. T he same statem en t is

true with respect to the average haul per ton in the two districts. The revenue ton miles

per loaded car mile as shown on this E xhibit is 27.24 for th e Southern D istrict and 23.85

for the Eastern District.



B y referring to E xhibit 16 th e to ta l expenses per car mile are considerably higher in th e E astern D istrict th a n in th e Southern D istrict. T he sam e statem en t is tru e w ith respect to Taxes and th e to tal expenses and taxes per tra in mile is more th a n 30% lower in the Southern District than in the Eastern District.

By reference to this Exhibit, it will be shown th a t in th e expense averages set fo rth on the Exhibit th a t the Southern District has a distinct advantage over the Eastern D istrict.

78

By reference to E xhibit 17, it will be ascertained th a t revenue per to n originated and revenue per to n carried is very m aterially higher in th e Southern D istrict th a n in th e Eastern District.
By referring to th e Commission's E xhibit 18, we see th a t th e gross term inal expense per ton handled in th e Southern D istrict was only $1.92 against $2.97 for th e E astern D istrict and th a t th e cost per car mile for th e Southern D istrict was only 5Q cents against 56 cents for the Eastern District.
By referring to th e Commission's E xhibit No. 19 we see th a t th e to ta l freight expense p e r loaded car mile is .1634 for th e E astern D istrict against .1541 for th e Southern Dis trict and the to ta l fre ig h t expense p e r tr a in m ile is $4.82 fo r th e E a ste rn D is tric t a g a in s t $3.82 fo r t h e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t. This to ta l freight expense per tra in mile is more than 25% higher in the Eastern D istrict.
From the record in this case we could go on multiplying these illustrations in hun dreds of ways. We are of the opinion th a t the definite facts and figures shown in the record, the reliability and authenticity of which have not been disproven, clearly and conclusively offset any difference betw een th e Southern and Official T errito ry th a t m ight arise from a difference in traffic density.
The rate structure as a whole cannot be changed or lessened by a small volume of traffic th a t is actually moved under th e present maxim um basic ra te by relating it to a short mileage block. I t is certain th a t th e carriers throu g h o u t Official T errito ry are rendering the service under conditions which we have described a t a much lower rate than under conditions prevailing in the Southern D istrict which do not w arrant such difference. *
The record discloses numerous instances and m any potential economies which m ight and should be perfected by the carrier, such economies as modern, honest, efficient busi ness management demands. We are not unmindful of the fact th a t the evidence shows instances of increased efficiency and economy in operation b u t we do find th a t th e record in this case discloses th a t there are still many ways in which more may be accomplished through cooperation among the carriers and through the application of business judgm ent.
Practically no advantage has been taken of the authority granted by the Transpor tation Act to pool freight traffic and earnings in the interest of economy and the record in this case discloses th a t many potential economics might be effected resulting in further saving to the carriers in eliminating competitive waste due to circuitous hauling and duplication of service and in other instances.
The record shows th a t through the agency of " Freight Forwarder Organizations" which are of necessity forced to operate on narrow margins or profit th a t superior condi tions have been developed, surpassing the comparable conditions of rail carriers. As an illustration, th e clerical expense of forw arders is shown to be 75% of to n originated and in 1932 th e cost of platform labor handling rail L. C. L. traffic was 98 cents per to n physically handled or a to tal of $1.96 for origin and destination handling.
Is it possible th a t the carriers have not felt the same necessity as th a t which con fronted the forwarders and which caused them to develop the superior practices and methods reducing cost of transportation?
A nother illustration of im proper m anagem ent which should be elim inated is found in the contracts between express companies and rail carriers. The reciprocal relation ship arising under these contracts often operate a t a distinct disadvantage to the express company and to the rail carrier.
By the pooling of shipments, integration of station facilities reduction in rail build ing expense, integrating traffic and facilities so as to reduce rail platform expense, co operation resulting in a reduction of transfers, a reduction of total costs by eliminating duplication of service wherever possible, economies affected through concentration a t destination of merchandise, all show a great need for th e exercise of an efficient economic judgm ent on the p a rt of the carriers in reducing th e cost of transportation so as to perm it th e rendition of the service a t a reasonable rate.
79

W ithout going further into m atters of this kind we simply state th a t in our opinion the record amply supports a finding th a t the present need of the public and the carriers is for a ra te level which will move th e traffic; th e need of th e public for adequate and efficient railway transportation service a t the lowest possible cost; and the need of the public to have rates th a t will, under honest, economic and efficient m anagem ent, yield the carriers a reasonable revenue demand th at such needs and methods and practices should be reflected in a reasonable rate level prescribed for the movem ent of the traffic.
This Commission after a recent hearing on a former rule nisi, in view of its finding th a t the basic class rate level in Southern Territory should be on the approximate same basis as for Official T erritory, perscribed a scale of class rates for application between points w ithin Georgia which were on th e approxim ate level in effect in Official T erritory. T he carriers filed suit in th e U nited States C ourt and obtained a restraining order enjoin ing the enforcement of said schedule on the ground th a t said rates were confiscatory. Subsequently this commission passed an order revoking said rates and also passed an order discharging the rule nisi under which the former hearing was had. I t issued th e rule nisi under which the hearing as had in this case and conducted the hearings in an effort to ascertain an equitable basic class rate level not subject to any constitutional ob jections. A t this hearing much testim ony was introduced, and th e Commission's expert introduced voluminous testim ony dealing specifically with the various com parative operative results; costs of rendering th e service; and numerous items affecting a proper rate level. We have referred to this testimony throughout this opinion, and have care fully considered the entire record developed on this investigation. We feel th a t we are required to prescribe a rate level substantially different from the one which was enjoined, and will do so. We are convinced and it is our deliberate judgm ent th a t th e schedule which will be prescribed is am ply supported by th e record in this case, and is ju st and reasonable from th e standpoint of th e carriers and is entirely free from any logical and reasonable attack as to its constitutionality.
The record in the case before the Commission disclosed the fact th at, although th e S tate of Georgia, is prim arily and essentially an agricultural state th a t, from th e stan d point of industrial developm ent, it ranks a t th e to p am ong th e southern states and p a r ticularly with reference to the development of the cotton manufacturing industry. This industrial development, of necessity, brings about a closer sim ilarity between traffic and tran sp o rtatio n conditions in this state and in Official T erritory. The traffic movem ent in this state is therefore n o t sporadic and unusual. M any of th e points of origin an d distribution are points of m anufacture and industrial development.
The carriers have throughout the hearing stressed their present acute financial con dition and have contended th a t because of this fact the present level should not be dis turbed.
In I. C. C. D ocket 25,233, which was decided by the In terstate Commerce Commis sion on Jan u ary 22, 1934, th a t body said:
" W ith respect to the question of past unreasonableness, defendants stress their present acute financial condition and contend, in substance, th a t because of this, they should n o t be required to pay reparation. A shipper is entitled to reasonable rates notw ithstanding the financial condition of a carrier."
The carriers have not furnished to us the value of their property allocated and ap portioned to the rendition of Georgia intrastate traffic. They explained their failure to do this by stating th a t their system of bookkeeping and accounting was not kept in such a way as would enable them to make the allocation w ith reasonable accuracy. N either did they attem p t to make any allocation as to th e revenues assignable to traffic move m ent intrastate in Georgia, nor as to the operating expenses incurred by them in th e rendition of this type of service.
We are not unmindful of the fact th a t the carriers have used some system by which they have allocated the portion of their property situated w ithin the State of Georgia for the purpose of tax assessment.
The evidence disclosed th a t the ten principle class one carriers operating in Georgia operate a to tal mileage of approxim ately 26,000 throughout their systems and th a t of
80

this total, approxim ately 5,400 miles, -are operated iti Georgia. The exact percentage is 20.8.
In the case of
C entral of Georgia R y. v. R . R . Commission of Ala., 209 Fed., 75.
the U. S. D istrict C ourt in Alabama seemed to lay down th e proposition th a t th e valua tio n of a carrier's in tra sta te pro p erty for th e purpose of determ ining th e reasonableness of rates on in trastate business in the absence of definite property may be obtained by doubling the values fixed by the state for taxation purposes. On this basis, if th values which these ten principal class one carriers operating in Georgia made their returns to th e Comptroller General of this State, are doubled, and th a t figure should be taken as repre sentative of the fair value of the property located in this State, when the net railroad operating income by these carriers for th e year 1933, as tak en from th e record in th is case, is related to th a t value, th e ra te of re tu rn would exceed th e 5 f per cent, figure which was fixed by the In terstate Commerce Commission as the maximum rate of re turn for railroad carriers during the peak years.
The various carriers, of course, have different methods by which allocations and apportionm ents of revenues and expenses are m ade. For certain purposes locom otive miles is the basis used; for other purposes tra in load miles is th e basis used; for certain other purposes the actual figures are used; and in yet other instances the ton mile basis is used.
Regardless of w hat has been said above, it is certain th a t under th e evidence in this case, th e carriers regard the portion of their mileage in this S tate as constituting links in their entire system and th a t th e prime purpos in the operation of the entire sys tem , and th a t th e chief value to its owners, is found in th e through traffic, th e in tra sta te business being incidental only. If these facts are true, intrastate traffic should not be burdened in the distribution of transportation expenses and costs.
In giving this m atter consideration we have considered the principle announced by the Supreme Court of this State in the case of
Railroad Commission v. L. & N. Railroad Co., 140 Ga. 817, 832.
We feel th a t we have been fortified in this position further by the announcement of the same doctrine in the M innesota R ate Cases found in
230 U. S. 352, 57 L. E d. 1151.
And in th e long line of U. S. Supreme C ourt decisions following th e above nam ed case, we have not only a ttem p ted to elicit definite, specific inform ation relative to the carriers intrastate operations during the hearings in this case, b u t have prescribed a form to be used by the carriers in making their annual reports to this commission in which the de finite information has been called for and in spite of all of our efforts the carriers have not furnished the definite, specific figures either as to values, operating revenues, or ope rating expenses incident to and connected with the rendition of intrastate traffic.
T he record in this case as to values is very indefinite, vague and uncretain for m any reasons. The carriers have relied alm ost exclusively on investm ent accounts which in clude not only the investm ents of the carriers operating the lines b u t also include invest m ent in leased lines operated including cash working capital, material and supplies. To illustrate the unreliability of such value take, for example, the Central of Georgia Rail way. The investm ent account appeared to have been opened up on a basis of the par value of stocks and bonds which were later sold a t much less th a n th a t value. This illustration indicates th a t there is no reliability w hatever to be attach ed to such an investm ent value as a rate base. Again, in some instances bonds appear to have been sold or exchanged a t ridiculously low figures. R ates th a t will allow sufficient revenue to yield a return on a value based on such bonds of course would be unfair and unreasonable.
81

Another illustration of the indefinite and unreliable character of the evidence as to values is indicated by th e facts and figures which represent th e existing depreciation re serve fund. In m any instances fully fifty or sixty per cent of the entire investm ent of the carriers in equipm ent has been recovered by annual charges out of operating expenses to the depreciation reserve fund and in some instances there remains a t this tim e in the accrued depreciation reserve fund more than 50% of the entire investm ent of the carrier in equipment. Of course, any present value of the property of the carriers would have to be depreciated by w hatever existing depreciation there is in th e physical property.
Another illustration which might be cited as indicating the uncertainty as to any claimed fair value arises from the fact th a t the present state of maintenance of the property of the carriers generally appears to be unsatisfactory. A large percentage of locomotives, freight cars, etc., are in bad oder. A large percentage of such p roperty is n o t presently used or useful in the rendition of the service by the carrier. M aintenance of way and structures has been deferred to a large extent.
Another illustration arises in the fact th a t under the present system of operation by th e carrier excessive " dead" or " ta re " weight is required for th e m ovem ent of th e traffic.
Before any logical reasonable effect could be given to any contention on th e p a rt of the carrier as to its claimed right to earn a fair rate of return on the fair value of its proprety , we are of th e opinion and find th a t a complete readjustm ent of th e entire property and investm ent account would have to take place.
T he evidence of th e carriers disclosed th a t since 1926, in spite of th e fact th a t there had been a general decline in traffic conditions, traffic revenues, and traffic expenses, large investm ents had been had by a num ber of th e carriers. We have given consideration to th a t fact and have every reason to believe th a t the am ount of idle equipment, especially in rolling stock, is a t this tim e excessive and burdensome.
The history of class rates in this state, in our opinion, and in the light of the foregoing statem ents and conclusions attests th e unreasonableness of the present level.
The record in this case, in our opinion, fully substantiates the conclusions herein before stated and the findings based thereon as to the m ethod upon which a ju st and reasonable rate can and ought to be determined.
We are convinced th a t the carriers' attitude with respect to certain commodity rates and truck competitive rates indicates th a t the experiment thus far has been successful and has w arranted a continuance of these rates, and we have every reason to believe th a t the carriers are not now acting w ithout the aid of accurate and reliable data with reference to these rates. We do n o t conceive th a t it is beyond th eir power to have in th eir posses sion available data a t all times as to the results of such rates. These rates have been in effect for some considerable period of time.
We do not consider th a t because an in trastate rate may hot be on the exact level of interstate rates, th a t for th a t reason the intrastate rate should be condemned as unjust and unreasonable. Reasonableness in rates is n o t m easured by uniform ity.
We are convinced th a t in the distribution of the transportation burden, the rate structure should be so adjusted as to fairly, equitably and im partially divide all costs incident to or connected therewith in the rendition of the service and in the paying for it, so as to prevent an undue burden either to the carrier or to th e public. T h a t it is not fair, ju st and equitable for the carrier to assume all of the loss or for the public to carry the entire burden.
We feel th a t our position w ith respect to th e w orth of th e service is fortified by judi cial interpretation and by regulatory decisions, and should be given effect in determining a proper measure to apply in fixing ju s t and reasonable rates.
We find th a t the disparity existing a t the present time, between railroad lines and th e prices of other commodities should be relieved and th a t a reduction in the existing class freight rates will result in removing a t least a p a rt of this disparity.
82

We are of the opinion th a t the difference between rates in Georgia and elsewhere are not justified a t the present time, and th a t a reduction of Georgia class freight rateswill result in industries and enterprises of Georgia using th e facilities of the carriers to a greater extent and to their mutual advantage.
We find, upon the consideration of the record in this case, th a t the present schedules of class rates applicable on Georgia in trastate traffic which were established and which be came effective in January, 1928, are grossly unjust, unreasonable, excessive and exorb itan t and should be reduced.
We further find th a t the schedules of rates attached hereto are just and reasonable as basic class rates for application on Georgia intrastate traffic and are ju st and reasonable maximum rates which are commensurate w ith the value of the service rendered by th e carriers and which are just and reasonable to the carrier.
An order for the future will be entered in accordance with the above findings.
J. P. W ilhoit, Chairman
July 21, 1934. F ile -- 19231.
Docket No. 374-A.
IN R E : G eneral R evision of Class R ates betw een P oints w ithin the State of G eorgia. R ule N is i before the G eorgia P ublic Service C ommission.

After consideration of the record in th e above stated case, and in accordance with th e opinion and findings of th is Commission, it is

O R D E R E D : T h a t effective on and after A ugust 20, 1934, and u ntil th e fu rth er o rd er of the Commission, the class rates shown in Appendix " A" and Appendix " B" , hereto attached and made a p a rt of this order, shall be the maximum rates to be charged by freight tariff Class " A" and freight tariff Class " B" railroads between points wholly w ithin th e S tate of Georgia and to be used and applied by each of the railroads operating within the State of Georgia in the manner and as hereinafter directed. Freight tariff Class "A " and freight tariff Class " B" railroads are as designated in Appendix " C" a t
tached hereto and made a p art hereof.

O RD ERED F U R T H E R : T h at the maximum class rates prescribed in the fore going order may not be applied in arriving a t carload commodity rates now in effect th a t are made by a fixed percentage of the first class rate, except th a t where the less carload in the foregoing order results in a lower rating a n d /o r charge and observing the car load minimum weight such less carload class rate shall be observed as the maximum car
load rate.
O R D E R E D F U R T H E R : T h at the maximum class rates prescribed in the foregoing order shall be subject to Southern Classification ratings as approved by the Commission and exceptions to Southern Classification ratings as approved by the Commission, ex cept th a t where any rule of said Southern Classification conflicts w ith any rule of th is Commission the rule of the Commission shall govern.

O RD ERED F U R T H E R : T h at the joint rates prescribed in the foregoing order shall be divided on the same basis and under the same conditions as prescribed in th e Commission's order dated Decem ber 7, 1927, effective Jan u ary 15, 1928, D ocket 16415.

Subject to the further order of the Commission.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester,
Secretary. 83

J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

A PPEN D IX " A"
M AXIM UM CLASS RATES TO BE CHARGED BY ALL FR EIG H T T A R IFF CLASS "A" RAILROADS FOR SIN GLE AND JO IN T L IN E APPLICATION

Rates in Cents per 100 Pounds.

Classes

Distances

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i f 12

5 m iles a n d u n d e r.................... 30 26 21 17 14 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 10 m iles a n d over 5................. 31 26 21 17 14 12 11 9 8 7 6 5 15 m iles a n d over 10................. 33 28 22 18 15 13 12 10 9 8 7 6 20 m iles a n d over 15............... 34 29 24 19 15 14 12 10 9 8 . 7 6 25 m iles a n d over 20-................ 36 31 25 2C 17 14 13 11 9 8 7 6

30 m iles a n d over 25................. 37 32 26 21 17 15 13 12 10 8 7 6 35 m iles a n d over 30............... 39 34 28 22 18 16 14 12 11 9 8 7 40 m iles a n d over 35....... ......... 41 35 30 23 19 17 15 12 11 9 8 7 45 m iles a n d over 40................. 43 37 31 24 20 17 16 13 12 10 9 7 50 m iles a n d over 45............ -- 45 40 32 26 21 18 17 14 12 11 9 8

55 m iles a n d over 50................. 48 41 34 27 21 19 17 15 12 11 10 9 50 m iles a n d over 55................. 50 43 35 28 22 20 17 15 12 12 10 9 55 m iles a n d over 6 0 --............. 53 45 36 29 23 21 18 16 13 12 11 9 7C m iles a n d over 65..... . .......... 55 46 38 30 24 21 19 17 14 12 11 10 75 m iles a n d over 70................. 57 48 39 31 25 22 20 17 14 12 12 10

80 m iles a n d over 75................. 59 49 40 32 26 23 21 17 15 13 12 10 85 m iles a n d over 80-- ............. 60 50 41 32 26 24 21 17 15 13 12 11 90 m iles a n d over 85................. 61 51 42 33 27 24 21 18 15 13 12 11 95 m iles a n d over 90-................ 62 52 43 34 27 25 21 18 16 14 12 11 100 m iles a n d over 95................. 63 54 44 35 28 25 22 19 16 14 12 11

110 m iles a n d over 100................. 65 55 45 36 30 26 23 20 17 15 13 12 120 m iles a n d over 110-................ 68 58 47 37 31 27 24 21 17 15 13 12 130 miles a n d over 120................. 70 59 49 39 32 28 25 21 17 16 14 12 140 m iles a n d over 130................. 73 62 51 40 33 29 26 21 18 17 15 12 150 m iles a n d over 140................. 75 64 53 41 34 30 26 22 19 17 15 13

160 m iles a n d over 150................. 78 66 54 42 35 31 27 23 20 17 15 13 370 m iles a n d over 160................. 80 67 55 43 35 31 28 24 20 18 16 14 180 m iles a n d over 170-.............. 82 68 57 44 36 32 28 24 21 18 16 14 190 m iles a n d over 180................. 84 70 58 45 37 33 29 25 21 19 17 15 200 m iles a n d over 190................. 85 72 9 46 38 34 30 26 21 19 17 15

210 m iles a n d over 200............ . 86 73 60 47 39 35 30 26 21 19 17 15 220 m iles a n d over 210............ . 88 74 61 48 40 35 31 26 22 20 17 15 230 m iles a n d over 220................. 89 76 63 49 40 35 32 26 22 20 17 15 240 m iles a n d over 230-- ............. 91 78 64 50 41 36 32 27 23 21 18 16 260 m iles a n d over 240............ -__ 94 80 66 52 42 38 33 28 24 21 18 16

280 m iles a n d over 26C..........

97 83 68 54 44 39 34 29 25 22 19 17

300 m iles a n d over 280-- ............. 101 86 70 55 45 40 35 30 26 22 19 17

320 m iles a n d over 300................ 104 88 73 57 47 41 36 31 26 23 20 18

340 m iles a n d over 320.............. 107 92 75 9 49 43 38 32 27 24 21 19

360 m iles a n d over 340................. 111 94 78 61 50 45 39 33 28 25 21 19

380 m iles a n d over 360................. 114 97 80 63 51 45 40 34 29 26 22 20 400 m iles a n d over 380................. 117 ICO 82 64 53 47 41 35 30 26 22 21 420 m iles a n d over 400-- ............. 120 101 84 66 54 48 42 36 30 27 23 21 440 m iles a n d over 420................. 122 104 86 67 55 49 43 36 31 27 24 21 460 m iles a n d ovei 440................. 125 106 87 68 56 50 44 37 31 28 25 22

84

A PPEN D IX " B'
M AXIM UM CLASS BATES TO BE CHARGED BY ALL F R E IG H T T A R IFF CLASS " B" RAILROADS FO R SIN GLE AND JO IN T L IN E A PPLICA TION

Rates in Cents per 100 Pounds. Classes

Distances

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

5 m iles a n d u n d e r ................... 39 35 28 23 18 16 14 12 10 9 8 7 10 m iles a n d over 5................. 40 35 28 23 18 16 14 12 10 9 8 7 15 m iles a n d over 10................. 44 38 30 25 21 18 17 13 12 10 9 8 20 m iles a n d over 15................. 45 38 31 25 21 19 17 14 12 11 9 8 25 m iles a n d over 20................. 47 41 34 26 22 19 17 15 12 11 9 8

30 m iles a n d over 25.......... ...... 49 42 35 28 22 20 17 15 13 11 10 8 35 m iles a n d over 30................. 51 45 37 29 23 21 18 15 13 12 10 10 40 m iles a n d over 35.......... ...... 53 46 38 30 24 22 19 16 14 12 11 10 45 m iles a n d over 40..... ............ 57 50 42 32 27 23 21 17 15 13 12 10 50 miles a n d over 45-- ............. 59 52 42 34 28 24 22 18 16 14 12 10

55 m iles a n d over 50................. 63 54 45 36 28 26 23 19 16 15 13 12 60 m iles a n d over 55.......... ...... 65 56 45 36 29 26 23 20 16 15 13 12 65 m iles a n d over 60................. 68 58 47 37 30 28 24 21 17 16 14 12 70 m iles a n d over 65................ 72 61 50 40 31 28 25 22 18 16 15 13 75 m iles a n d over 70................. 74 62 51 40 32 29 26 22 18 16 15 13

80 m iles a n d over 75................. 76 63 52 41 33 30 26 22 19 17 15 13 85 m iles a n d over 80................. 78 66 54 43 35 31 28 23 20 17 16 14 90 m iles a n d over 85................. 79 66 55 43 35 31 28 23 20 17 16 14 95 m iles a n d over 90................. 80 67 55 44 35 32 28 24 20 18 16 14 100 m iles a n d over 95................. 81 69 57 45 36 33 28 24 21 18 16 14

110 m iles a n d over 100-................ 83 70 58 46 38 33 29 25 21 19 16 15 120 m iles a n d over 110................. 86 73 60 47 39 34 30 26 21 20 17 16 130 m iles a n d over 120................. 90 76 64 50 41 36 32 27 22 21 18 16 140 m iles a n d over 130-................ 93 79 65 50 42 37 33 27 23 21 19 16 150 m iles a n d over 140-................ 96 82 67 53 43 39 33 29 24 22 19 17

160 miles a n d over 150................. 99 84 69 53 45 39 34 30 25 22 19 17 170 m iles a n d over 160-- ............. 103 86 71 55 46 41 36 31 26 23 21 18 180 m iles a n d over 170................. 105 88 73 57 46 41 36 31 26 23 21 18 190 m iles a n d over 180-................ 107 90 74 58 47 42 37 32 27 24 22 18 200 m iles a n d over 190................. 109 92 76 59 49 43 38 33 27 24 22 19

210 m iles a n d over 200................. 110 94 77 60 50 44 39 33 27 25 22 19 220 m iles a n d over 210-................ 112 95 78 62 51 45 40 33 28 25 22 19 230 m iles a n d over 220................. 115 98 81 64 51 46 41 34 29 26 22 19 240 m iles a n d over 230-................ 117 100 82 64 52 46 41 36 29 27 23 21 250 m iles a n d over 240-.............. 120 102 84 66 54 48 42 36 30 27 23 21

260 m iles a n d over 250-................ 121 103 85 67 54 48 42 36 31 27 23 21 270 m iles a n d over 260................. 124 106 87 69 56 50 44 38 32 28 24 21 280 m iles a n d over 270................. 124 106 87 69 56 50 44 38 32 28 24 21 290 m iles a n d over 280................. 128 109 89 70 57 51 44 38 32 29 25 22 300 m iles a n d over 290................. 131 111 91 72 58 52 45 39 33 29 25 23

310 miles a n d over 300................. 134 114 94 74 60 53 47 40 33 30 26 23 320 m iles a n d over 310................. 134 114 94 74 60 53 47 40 33 30 26 23 330 miles a n d over 320-................ 137 117 96 75 62 55 48 41 33 31 27 24 340 m iles a n d over 330................. 139 119 97 76 63 56 49 42 34 31 27 24 350 m iles a n d over 340................. 143 121 100 78 65 57 50 43 36 32 27 25

360 m iles a n d over 350-................ 143 121 100 78 65 57 50 43 36 32 27 25 370 m iles a n d over 360................. 146 125 102 81 66 58 52 44 37 33 28 26 380 m iles a n d over 370................. 147 125 103 81 66 58 52 44 37 33 28 26 390 miles a n d over 380................. 150 128 106 82 68 60 52 45 38 33 29 27 400 m iles a n d over 390-................ 150 128 106 82 68 60 52 45 38 33 29 27

41C m iles a n d over 400................. 153 129 107 84 69 61 53 45 39 34 30 27 420 m iles a n d over 410................. 155 131 108 85 70 62 54 46 39 35 30 28 430 m iles a n d over 420................. 157 134 111) 87 70 63 55 47 40 35 31 28 440 m iles a n d over 430................. 157 134 110 87 70 63 55 47 40 35 31 28 450 m iles a n d over 440................. 160 136 111 87 72 64 56 48 40 36 32 29 460 m iles a n d over 450................. 161 137 112 89 72 65 56 48 40 36 32 29

85

APPENDIX "B1

Sheet 2.

and F r e X StT ?riffa^ S * C i f^ ClaSSi

^ ine aPPlication between Freight Tariff Class " A" Lines Lm ?s; also between F reight T ariff Class " A" Lines and

a d d < 5 T r V i Cn t.ra l of Georgia Railw ay th e following maximum differentials m ay

on A n i i d ! v <<A>> i 1Si f n^ Ve,r Class B p i e or Lines) to th e first class ra te shown on Appendix A and all other classes related to first class on percentage shown below.

D ifferentials

D istances

F irst Class

D istances

F irst Class

10 miles and under...

25 miles and over 10.

....

40 miles and over 25.

50 miles and over 40.

...

65 miles and over 50.

---

i3*f 15 17j 20 2 2.if

120 miles and over 80.. 140 miles and over 120 160 miles and over 140 190 miles and over 160 220 miles and over 190

80 miles and over 65.

~

24 i

350 miles and over 220

27 if 30 ff 32jf 34 jf
36i
39jf

In com puting rates, fractions to be disposed of as provided by F reight R ule No. 8.

CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROADS F reig h t T ariff Class "A" R ailroads:

APPENDIX "C"

Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company A tlanta, Birm ingham and Coast Railw ay Company A tlantic Coast Line Railroad Company A tlanta and West Point Railroad Company Central of Georgia Railway Company Charleston and Western Carolina Railway Georgia Railroad
Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company Lexington Terminal Railroad Company Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Monroe Railroad Company
^ r o a d ) ^ ^ ^ attan 0ga and Bcu's Railway Company (W estern & Atlantic Rail-

Southern R ailway Com pan C ` ( L R ` P We11, J r " and H enry W - Anderson, Receivers)

F r e i g h t T a rif f C la ss <eB " R a ilro a d s : .
Bowdon Railway C entral of Georgia R ailway Co. (Tybee B ranch S tations only) Collinsville and Glennville Railroad Elberton and Eastern Railway Flint River and N ortheastern Railroad Gainesville Midland Railway Georgia, Ashburn, Sylvester and Camilla Railway Company Georgia and Florida Railway (W. V. Griffin and H. W. Purvis, Receivers) Georgia N orthern Railway
86

F re ig h t T a riff C lass " B" R ailro ad s--C o n tin u e d .
Georgia, Southwestern and Gulf Railroad Greene County Railroad Hartwell Railway Company Lakeland Railway Louisville and W adley Railroad Macon, Dublin and Savannah Railroad Milstead Railway St. Marys R. R. Sandersville Railroad Savannah and A tlanta Railway Savannah and Statesboro Railway Shearwood Railway South Georgia Railway Statesboro and Northern Railway Company Sylvania Central Railway Company Talbotton Railroad Tallulah Falls Railway Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia Railroad Wadley Southern Railway Washington and Lincolnton Railroad W rightsville and Tennille Railroad
D O C K E T No. 374-A
IN R E : G eneral R evision of Class and
C ommodity R ates B etw een P oints
in G eorgia.
BY TH E COMMISSION: A rule nisi was issued by th e Georgia Public Service Commission on M ay 15, 1934,
directed to all rail carriers operating under its jurisdiction to show cause on M ay 28, 1934, why freight class and com m odity rates between points w ithin th e S tate of Georgia should n o t be reduced. T he rule was am ended on M ay 26, 1934. H earing under th e rule nisi was postponed until June 11, 1934, on which d ate on motion of counsel for th e carriers th e hearing was recessed u ntil June 25, 1934.
At this hearing, the carriers through their counsel tendered the entire record and all exhibits in docket No. 18825 before th e Georgia Public Service Commission, and th e entire record made in docket No. 18825 was adm itted in evidence for consideration by the Commission as applicable to all carriers. The Commission then proceeded to hear further evidence both oral and documentary as it related to the subject m atter of the investigation, up until Ju ly 7, 1934. T he hearing rem ained open and fu rth er evidence was introduced and the investigation was concluded and the record closed on July 19th, 1934.
The Commission now has before it for consideration the entire record made in said investigation and now proceeds to make its findings and issue its order thereon as it relates to naval stores. n i T he rates on rosin and tu rpentine were fixed in 1885. Rosin, any q u an tity , was rated Class " K " ; turpentine, any quantity, was rated Class " R " . Slight changes in these rates were m ade from tim e to tim e until 1896 when th e rates were fixed a t substantially th e sam e as th e original 1885 rate. T he rates were subjected to th e general horizontal changes in all rates, increase of twenty-five (25%) per cent, under General O rder No. 28, effective June 25, 1918; increase of tw enty-five (25% ) per cent, under ex p arte 74, effective on Georgia in tra sta te traffic on Septem ber 1, 1920; and ten (10% ) per cent, reduction under I . C. C. D ocket No. 13293, effective July 1, 1922. T he general effect of the three orders just referred to was a net increase of approximately forty (40%) per cent, in these rates.
87

Sic e ^ pT 1^ L
m atelv the flTM

mo r c h
ir> k

ahv}l

3f 2?' 1tih'e?,Mr aet e.ts"a

these
PPear

to

have

been

have be"
restored to

" *
approxi-

S S e onW I l

' I9?- T l e PresTM` rates f t * E m e

in

11 H u 32, aPPb cab le to any q u an tity to Savannah and Brunsw ick and

present first c la " sc Je f f S g ?

n " " b " iS f n in e te e n < * P

t

nf tk

^ c o m m o d itie s move largely in Southeastern Georgia, and in the direction

of th e ports of Brunswick and Savannah. A stu d y of th e record and exhibits filed hv tho

C S S m C nneCttl0n T th th is movem ent indicates modities represents a substantial p art of the carriers' freight haul in the section referred to, and when th e traffic is held to th e rail lines is a su bstantial S o d t

nf t v2nr ? ef hearing bef re th e Commission on docket No. 18825, Mr. M ark W Thom as of the Central of Georgia Railway testified on behalf of the carriers on this subject
ford P i , ^ ratln g th e traffic m this com m odity th e C entral of Georgia Railw ay is used
M r T W ^ and co.mPfa^atlve Purposes. I t appears from E xhibit No. m ^ l e d by M r Thom as as a p a rt of his testim ony th a t in th e year 1928 th e C entral of Georgia R ailway had a grand to ta l carload traffic of rosin and tu rp en tin e of 44 866 tons which produced a freight revenue of $76,260.00 and th a t in th e year 1932 it had a tttts f < 2 freight traffic of these commodities of 18,340 tons w ith a freight revenue of $36 7Q5 00

" S E t th Period>b?tb in volume and revenue, more th a n fifty (50%) per cent

Tt *

8 f-r t h e r 1caTM in tb e territory for th e same period s h o w ip r a c tS ll v

th e same experience as th a t of th e C entral of Georgia Railw ay; th a t is, a dechL T n voTume

f n r ih ^ l and/ f veaue of from fifty (50%) per cent, to sixty (60%) per cent. The reason for this loss of traffic and consequent loss of revenue is, in th e opinion of th e Commission

argely attributable to the prevailing high rates under which the commodities are moving!

ttiicca lalyUd rviv^e n^ tthhe etrai f^fiic ff^ro m t h e ra ils b yt ht ha te tyheea rr a1t9e3s1 oann dthtehsaet , cboumt mf oord tithiee st rhuacdk pc roamc - petitive rates which have been perm ited to be filed by this Commission from tim e to tim e T m ! ;0SK? volume and m revenue from this source would have been alm ost com plete
his is borne out by excerpts from applications for truck com petitive rates which have* been filed from tim e to tim e by th e carriers w ith this Commission!
We quote here from three of these applications:
f- f e Genef aI Traffic M anager of th e American S hort Line R ailroad Association, filed w ith th e Commission on A ugust 10, 1931 which appears to be the first application for a truck competitive rate.)
On account of actual tru ck com petition, au th o rity is re spectfully requested to publish rates on naval stores, any quan-
II n i011Di^ai S1 notice to tb e Commission, from Swainsboro, Dellwood, Blundale and Greenway, Ga. to Savannah, Ga., to expire A ugust 31, 1932, unless sooner cancelled, changed or extended; as follows:
" Rosin-- 11 per 100 pounds
T urpentine-- 2 1 ^ ^ . per 100 pounds
" We are informed th a t with this slight reduction in rates, a portion of the traffic which we are not now moving may be re gained, and it will also probably prevent other parties from di verting their naval stores tonnage to the trucks."
% -1,933' we quote from th e Traffic M anager of th e Georgia & xlonda Railroad on the subject of truck competitive rates.)
/,`A t PresenL a tru ck com petitive ra te of 9jf. on Rosin, and lO V it. on Turpentine, from Hazlehurst, Ga.; to Brunswick, Ga.,

is in effect via th e Southern Railw ay direct, as published in Agent Spieden's N aval Stores Tariff, I. C. C. 1457, to expire December
81, 1933.
" Our shipping friends a t H azlehurst are offering us shipments to move via our line to Douglas, thence A. B. & C. R ailroad, and th e la tte r line has expressed to us^ th eir willingness in meeting the rate of the Southern Railway.

(As late as April 1934, we quote from M r. F. L. Spieden, Agent, S. F . T . B.)

" T here is a substantial m ovem ent of rosin and turpentine from Rochelle, P itts and Queensland, Ga., to Savannah, Ga., and an investigation developed th a t the m ajor portion of the trattic is
now being handled by truck. The rail lines will be deprived of the entire movement unless truck competitive rates are imme
diately established. The proposed rates compare favorably with truck competitive rates from other Georgia points to Savannah, Ga., and it is, therefore, proposed to publish th e rates shown ia Exhibit " A" subject to expiration date of December 31, 1934.

" In order th a t rail carriers may be in a position to move this traffic prom ptly when offered, i t is th e desire of^ ymj1" mner th a t he be perm itted to publish rates proposed in Exhibit A . subject to expiration date as pro d d ed herein, effective a t the
earliest *possible d ate on one day s notice.

I t can thus be seen from these quotations th a t over a period of

have been trying to regain and hold this traffic w ith truck compe

carriers have

interesting t o note th e statem en t of M r. Spieden to th e effec

referred

made an investigation of the. m ovem ent in rosin and turpem i to and th a t th is investigation developed th e fa c t th a t th e

orT ,o rtioil 0f th e

P ,

j ines

traffic in A pril of th is year was being h an d led by tru ck s a l,d Jh ^t w ere in a position w here th ey m ig h t lose th e en tire m ovem ent in th is com

m odity unless com petitive rates were im m ediately established.

As indicated by recent expressions of Congress, rates should be ^ " ed tjm t will have th e effect of moving commerce and it is m anifest from th e situation show
relative to these commodities th a t the maximum prescribed rates commodity. The experiment of truck competitive rates has and th e application of M r. Spieden in April 1934 is .indlcative of th e facTM y t7 affic^ periment has clearly proven th a t the maximum prescribed rates m il no mov This being true, the Commission feels th a t it is its d u ty under statu tes oli t h i S t a t e
to arrive a t a fair and ju st maximum reasonable rate to be^prescribed . c0mm0(iities of these commodities. I t is unfair to th e producers of th e s e ^ P ^ a n t c o n m ad itie and unfair to the buyers a t the ports, as well as to the carriers themselves th a t
under which these commodities are moving, should remain in condition, and th e Commission feels th a t f is to th e in terest of th is lg* n d a * * J an the rail carriers th a t the rates be stabilized on a reasonable, fair and ju st basis.

Truck comDetitive rates are in most instances point to point which necessarily resulte hi m or^c^Tle^Jdiscrim ination. I t is desirable th a t this discrim ination be rem oved and the Commission has endeavored to do this in th e prescribed mileage scale.

The Commission hais given consideration to th e situation as shown by th e recor and has come to th e conclusion th a t th e present maximum rates aie exc:ess've'f able and unjust and th a t a fair, reasonable and ju st maximum rate is to be found sub
stantially lower th a n those now in effect A ttached heret.o i ^ ef n ^ 0d" bl^ to th e schedule of rates which the Commission has found to be fa ir,ju s t and reasonable to shipper and the carrier for the movement of these commodities.

An order for the future will be entered in accordance w ith th e above findings.

This, th e 21st day of July, 1934. 89

J. P. W lL H O IT , C hairm an.

Ju ly 21, 1934.
File-- 19231
D ocket N o. 374-A IN R E : R ule N isi before Georgia P ublic
Service C ommission, G en era l R e v isio n OF RATES ON NAVAL STORES BETWEEN POINTS IN GEORGIA.

After consideration of the record in the above stated case, and in accordance with th e opinion and findings of th is Commission, it is,

O R D E R E D : T h a t effective on a n d a fter A ugust 20, 1934, and u n til th e fu rth e r order of this Commission, the rates shown on Appendix " A" attached hereto and made a part of this order shall be the maximum rates to be charged for the transportation of naval stores in either carload or less carload quantities by all rail carriers in Georgia.

,

v u ? FU R T H E R : T hat the joint rates prescribed in the foregoing order

shall be divided on the same basis and under the same conditions as prescribed in the

Commission s order dated D ecem ber 7, 1927, effective Jan u a ry 15, 1928, D ocket 16415.

BY ORDER OF T H E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J. M. F orrester, Secretary.

______ _____

J. P. WlLHOIT, C hairm an.

A PPEN D IX " A"
RATES ON NAVAL STORES, ANY QUANTITY FOR SINGLE & JO IN T LIN E APPLICATION BETW EEN POINTS IN GEORGIA R a tes A re in C en ts per 100 P o u n d s

M iles

R ates B

M iles

R ates B

10 20 30 40 50

5

6X

200

5

7

210

5

7

220

5

7

230

5X

8

240

lsx

21X

14

22

14X

22X

14X

2SX

15

24

60 70 80 90 100

6

8X

250

6

8X

260

6

8X

270

6

8 X

280

8

10X

290

16
17X 19 21 22

25
26X 28 30 33

110 120 130 140 150

8

10X

300

8

10X

320

10

12

340

11

12X

360

12

14

380

22

34

23

35

23

36

24

37

25

38

160

12K

16

170

13

18

180

13

20

190

13X

21

400

26

39

420

27

40

440

27

41

460

27

43

Com m odity D escription A--Crude wood oil, pine gum, pine pitch, pine tar, pine

tar oil, pyroligneous liquor, rosin, rosin batting dross, rosin dross, rosin liquor, rosin

oil and rosin sizing.

n `

C om m odity D escription B--Pine oil, spirits of turpentine, and turpentine.

90

D O C K E T S09-A
F IL E 19227
IN R E : R evision of R ates on P etroleum and P etroleum P roducts Betw een
P oints in G eorgia.
BY T H E COMMISSION: U pon a com plaint filed by th e S tan d ard Oil C om pany of K entucky, th e Gulf R e
fining C om pany and th e A tlantic Refining C om pany, on th e 19th day of Jan u ary , 1934, alleging discrimination in the rates on Petroleum and products thereof moving In trastate in Georgia against the Interstate movement on the same commodities from the territory khown as New Orleans Baton Rouge Group, th e Commission issued its nisi to all Rail Carriers operating within the State of Georgia to answer said petition and scheduled the hearing for Jan u ary 26th, 1934.
The hearing was continued from January 26th and was taken up on M arch 13th, 1934. *
Between th e date of th e petition filed by th e S tandard Oil Company, th e Gulf Re fining Company, and the A tlantic Refining Company, and th e date of th e hearing, other Oil Companies operating w ithin th e S tate of Georgia intervened in said case.
A t th e hearing held on M arch 13th, 1934, Traffic Representatives of th e Oil Com panies operating within this State and all R ail Carriers were present and both subm itted testimony for consideration by th e Commission in the m atter of rates to, from and between points in Georgia on Petroleum and Petroleum products.
A voluminous record of oral testim ony and m any exhibits were filed by com plainants and defendants in said m atter. The case was concluded on M arch 14th, the record ordered closed, all parties having answered th a t they had no further testim ony to offer and the Commission took th e m atter under advisement.
T he Commission now has before it for consideration, th e entire record made in said investigation and now proceeds to make its findings and issue its order thereon as it relates to Petroleum and products thereof.
The record discloses w ith reference to th e allegations of discrimination and the extent of the discrimination in th e existing rates from Brunswick, P o rt W entw orth and Savannah certain p e rtin e n t facts clearly se t o u t in com plainant's E xhibits 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13 and 15 by W itness Beck.
We find from th e record th a t shipments have been regularly made from New OrleansB aton Rouge D istrict into Georgia in competition w ith shippers from th e Georgia Ports of Brunswick, P o rt W entworth and Savannah.
C om plainant's E x h ib it 19 clearly shows th e a b ility <of B a tb n R ouge to ship to a Georgia point a t a lower rate th an distributors located in Georgia can ship for similar distances. An instance of th is is
" B aton Rouge can ship to Columbus, Georgia, a distance of 488 miles for 41 f., while fo r th e maxim um distance in tra sta te in Georgia, 460 miles, th e rate is 44., or 3^., higher. T he in terstate movem ent for 488 miles is 41 as against th e Georgia in tra sta te ra te of 41j. for 360 miles."
T he record fails to disclose any real or substantial reasons for th e dispensatory in th e rates as po rtray ed by com plainant's E xhibits.
The testim ony offered a t th e hearing discloses th a t th e Oil Companies have made large investm ents a t the Georgia Ports above referred to for th e m anufacture a n d /o r distribution of Petroleum and products thereof In trastate throughout Georgia.
I t also appears from th e record th a t unless relief is granted, th a t the investm ent a t th e P orts w ithin th e S tate of Georgia which have been m ade by th e Oil Companies for
91

th e purpose of serving points w ithin th e S tate are jeopardised by reason of th e coin* petition from the New O rleans-Baton Rouge T erritory and from Refineries in the Southwest.
The Commission finds th a t the present Georgia In trastate rates are unjust and unreasonable and the discriminatory nature of the existing rates on Petroleum products w ithin th e S tate of Georgia, if continued, will stifle th e traffic on Petroleum and Petroleum products In tra sta te in Georgia and will destroy th e value of th e properties of th e Oil Companies located a t Brunswick;, P o rt W entw orth and Savannah and will force th e Oil Companies to resort to other m ethods of transportation of their products and will result in considerable loss of revenue and tonnage to the carriers.
The Commission further finds th a t the rates set out in Appendix " A" hereto attached will be compensatory to the carriers and remove the existing discrimination which has been pointed out in this opinion.
An order in accordance with the findings herein will be entered.
This th e 26th day of July, 1934.
J. P. W ilhoit, C hairm an.

Ju ly 26th, 1934.
F IL E -- 19227
D O C K E T NO. 309*A
IN R E: R evision of R ates on P etroleum and P etroleum P roducts B etw een P oints in Georgia.

After consideration of the record in the above stated case, and in accordance w ith

th e opinion and findings of th is Commission, i t iis,

-



O R D E R E D : T h a t effective on and after A ugust 31st, 1934, and u n til th e fu rth er order of this Commission, the rates shown on Appendix " A" attached hereto and made a p a rt of this order shall be the maximum rates to be charged for the transportation of Petroleum and products thereof in carload quantities by all rail carriers in Georgia;

O RD ERED FU R T H ER : T hat the joiht rates prescribed in the foregoing order shall be divided on the same basis and under the same conditions as prescribed in the Commission's order d atd December 7th, 1927, effective Jan u ary 15th, 1928, D ocket 16415.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

J , M , F or,riester, Secretary.

J. P . W ilhoit, C hairm an.

92

APPENDIX "A** PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, CARLOAD
Rates in Cents per 100 Pounds

M iles
5 TO 15 20 25
30 35 40 45 50
55 60 65 70 75
80 85 90 95 100
110 120 130 140 150
160 170 180 190 200

L in es

A

B

9

11

10

12

11

14

11

14

12

15

13

16

13

16

14

16

15

18

15

19

16

20

17

21

18

22

18

22

19

23

19

23

20

25

20

25

20

25

21

26

22

26

23

27

23

28

24

29

25

30

26

31

26

32

27

32

28

34

28

34

M iles
210 220 230 240 250
260 270 280 290 300
310 320 330 340 350
360 370 380 390 400
410 420 430 440 450 460

Lines

A

B

29

55

29

35

50

37

30

37

1

37

51

87

32

38

32

38

34

40

34

11

35

42

35

42

80

43

36

44

37

45

37

45

38

46

38

46

39

47

39

47

40

49

40

49

41

50

41

50

42

51

42

51

93

* *-**

A ugust 20, 1934.

v ` ' ' *' *l ......

- ` '

D ocket 309-A

_

........ ;

/ ;.

File-- 19227

IN R E : R evision of rates on P etroleum

and P etroleum P roducts betw een

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

P oints w ithin the S tate of G eorgia.

i

A

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

Xlpon fu rth er consideration of th e record in th e above entitled proceedings, and
for the purpose of'defining the Class " A" and Class " B" Lines, and for the further pur pose' pf prejscribiifg single a n d / o r jo in t line maximum rates betw een F reig h t Tariff Class' " A" and " B " Lines, I t is

FU RTH ER O R D E R E D : T h a t the Freight Tariff Class " A" and Freight Tariff

Class B Lines are those as shown on Appendix " A -l" attached hereto and made a

p a r t hereof.!

. :

^U R T H E R O R D ERED : T h at rates shown under column " A" of Appendix " A" of th$ original order d ated Ju ly 26, 1934, shall be th e maximum rates to be charged for
single; a n d / o r jo in t line application between F reight Tariff Class " A" Lines, as shown on Appendix " A -l", attached hereto and made a p a rt hereof.

^FU R TH ER O R D ER ED : T h at rates shown under Column " B" on Appendix " A'" o f th e original; order shall be th e maximum rates to be charged for single a n d / o r joint line application between Freight Tariff Class " B" lines, and for joint line application between Freight Tariff Class " A" and Freight Tariff Class " B" Lines.

F U R T H E R O R D E R E D : T h at the differences between the maximum mileage rates ..shown under, columns " A" and " B" on Appendix " A" of th e original order for th e same "distance shaJLaccrue as arbitraries solely to the Freight Tariff Class " B " Lines, as shovrp on Appendix " A -l" , attached hereto and made a p a rt hereof.

Effective Sept. 20, 1934.

BY ORDER OF TH E GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

J . M,i. F o r r ester , Secretary.,;,

J . P . WlLHOIT, C hairm an.

APPENDIX " A -l"
CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROADS
F reig h t T ariff Class " A" R ailroads:
Alabama G reat Southern Railroad Company Atlanta^ Birm ingham 'and Coast Railway Company A tlanta Coast Line Railroad Company Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company C entral of Georgia Railway Company Charleston and Western Carolina Railway Georgia Railroad Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company Lexington Terminal Railroad Company Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway Company (W estern & A tlantic Railroad) Savannah and A tlanta Railway (C. E. Gay, Jr., Receiver) Seaboard Air Line Railway Company (L. R. Powell, Jr. and H enry W. Anderson
Receivers) Southern Railway Company
94

F reight Tariff Class " B " Railroads: Bowdon Railway Central of Georgia Railway Company (Tybee Branch Stations only) Collins and Glennville Railroad Flint River and Northeastern Railroad Gainesville M idland Railway Georgia, Ashburn, Sylvester and Camilla Railway Company Georgia and Florida Railway (W. V. Griffin and H. W. Purvis, Receivers) Georgia N orthern Railway Georgia, Southwestern and Gulf Railroad Greeny County Railroad Hartwell Railway Company Lakeland Railway Louisville and Wadley Railroad Macon, Dublin and Savannah Railroad Milstead Railway St. M arys Railroad Sandersville Railroad Savannah and Statesboro Railway Shearwood Railway South Georgia Railway Statesboro and N orthern Railway Company Sylvania Central Railway Company Talbotton Railroad Tallulah Falls Railway Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia Railroad Wadley Southern Railway Wrightsville and Tennille Railroad
95

I G/4
lV'.AfV'O