OCR Text |
Show THEY KICK BACK. The Common Carriers File Their Answer An-swer to Complaints Launched by the Chamber. i Tbey Deny That the Rates are Unjust or That They Are in Violation Viola-tion of the Laws. A SHOT AT SALT LAKECiTY. It is Not the Largest or Only Important Center Between Denver and the Paciric Ocean. INCLINED TO BE "SASSY.;' The Intimation That They Had Been Guilty of THTf rim InwtMHl Veritable Sjurpris. i'arty to tho Le-feml.mta. Le-feml.mta. The railways, aeainst which the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, in its determined light against discritnatioQ directed its batteries have returned the tire. The com-plainants com-plainants in their appeal to the inter-state commerce commission set up change of extortionate freights and their demonalizing effect upon k industries, violations of the long and hhort haul clause and oilier thing prohibited by the law. The defendant Southern Paeilic company has tiled its answer to the complaint and is reproduced infullas follows; The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce vs. the Union Pveific railway, the Denver Jc Kio Grande railway, the Southern Pacific company, com-pany, the Burfintrton A Miasotiri River Kail-road Kail-road company, the Atchison, Topeka Sc Santa Fe Kailroad Company, the Chicago, Rock Island ft Pacific Railroad company. The Southern Pacific company, one of the defendants above named, for tnswer in its behalf to the petition of the above named petitioner, herein riled: First Admits that it, this defendant, is a common carrier, and is engaged in railroad transportation. Second Denies that the rates specified in the schedules or tariffs of charges, or any of them putinto effect by defendants or enforced en-forced ouer their lines for the transportation transporta-tion of various kinds or classes of freight therein mentioned, or from Sioux City, Iowa, on the north, and Kansas City, Mo., on the south, or all or any Missouri river common points, or from San Francisco, California, Cal-ifornia, to Salt Lake City, are unreasonable or unjust, or in violation of the first section of the act to reliulate commerce; or at all; or for the reason that actual cost of movement of freight over the defendants lines, or including the elements of cost that can be properly charged against the movement of freight from Missouri river common points and from San Francisco, California, to Salt Lake City, Utah, does not exceed one-half of one cent per ton per mile ; and denies that the actual cost of movement of freight over the defendant's lines, or any of them, or between be-tween the points specified in the petition, or any of them, does not exceed one-half of one ce per ton per mile. Pi't. to the con- : trary this defendant avers that the actual I cost of movement of freight over the iines and between the points specified in the complaint com-plaint does largely exceed the amount specified in the petition and is great!' in excess thereof: and denies that the charges made and collected for tlie service specified in the petition are, in some cases, or is in any case, over nine times the amount of cost of movement or is in co ease less than three times the actual cost of movement. Third This defer.daut denies that the rates now established and charged by the defendants, or any of them, for the carriage over their lines of the various kinds or classes of freight from the Missouri river common points described in the petition, or any of them, to San Francisco in tho state of California, and Salt Lake City, in the territory terri-tory of Utah, constitute unjust discrimination, discrimina-tion, or a violation of section four of the act to regulate commerce; or at all; or give undue or unreasonable preference or advantage ad-vantage in favor of the merchants or dealers or shippers of San Francisco, or any of tliem or of traffic transported thereto, or subjects the trade or commerce of Salt Lake City, thereto or gives the merchants or dealer or shippers of Salt Lake City or persons or any person engaged therein, to undue or unreasonable unrea-sonable prejudice or disadvantage, or in violation of the act to regulate commerce. Fourth This defendant denies that the rates now established and charged by the defendants, defend-ants, or any of them, for transportation over their lines of the various kinds' or classes of freight articles from the Missouri river com-nfon com-nfon points, or any of them, described in the petition, to Salt Lake City, in the territory of ! Utah, or San Francisco, in the state if Cali- j fornia, produce or result in a greater compensation com-pensation in the aggregate for transportation transporta-tion of like kinds of said freight articles under un-der a substantially similar circumstances and . oi ditions for the shorter distance from said, or either of said, Missouri river common com-mon points to Salt Lake City. Utah, than for the longer distance over the same line in the same direction to San Francisco, California, the shorter being concluded in the longer distance; or that said rates are in violation of the provisions of the act to regulate commerce. com-merce. But to the contrary this defendant avers that the transportation from the Missouri Mis-souri common points specified in the petition to Salt Lake City, Utah, is not made under substantially similar circumstances and conditioned con-ditioned with the transportation to San Francisco, Fran-cisco, California. Fifth The defendant denies that Salt Lake City is the largest or only important center of trade between Denver and San Francisco, and denies that the defendants, or any of them, charge excessive or unlawful rates for the transportation of various kinds of freight, or that same constitutes a violation of the act to regulate commerce. Sixth This defendant further avers that all its rates and ail of its joint rates in connection con-nection with the lines and roads of its co-defendants, co-defendants, are in all respects fair, reasonable reason-able and just and are in all things strictly in accord with the provisions of the act to regulate commerce; and as to all other averment in the petition not hereinbefore denied or explained, this defendant, on ac-couut ac-couut of its want of information and belief on the subject, denies the same and each thereof. Southern Pacific company. By J. C. Sti-bbs, Third Vice-President, Chahlfs H. Tweed, Attorney for Southern Pacific company. - - . |