| Show KATES nATES TOO nIGH I lollI lx ion Pay Ill JO W Per Jr Ceist Considerable dissatisfaction with tho thu Ih published ate rato to 10 tho thin Jam imposition In from rom rain points and particularly from SnIt Salt l lIS Ic hoard on overy side Ido Many who had contemplated taking tha thu trip trill ni to tn LI Norfolk have scan tho figures posted l hy by y thu tim roil rail railroads roads concluded that the th url CollieS too loo hIhi and RIOt that they hay Iho cant to BO RO Thun they thuy l to tomake tomake make comparison of or tho ho Into roto with other othel rotOR ratos offered by y thin thi thimi mi no railroad d companies COlli 1111 II I e s to 10 of or which thur Is no dl lion tion manifest to any cm I cret CIN and ant that by IW l comparison Ihn Li o t rato ratu from Salt SLit to J hanos union uniontown town Is 40 Pta per cent cant In cusa a anC nf nC Iho tho rato ratu to 10 other points A tow few figure on thin this proposition ire aro The Ti Union lOUt has posted III In a IL I place In thi titI city for various data given Ivon Uto following On May ay UT n and 1111 30 10 and anti Juno 3 O 7 12 I 2 anti 14 the following return r trip rates tiro uro offered d H Reg K v re QUI turn lurn stun slon fare f farelo lo 10 Denver 1976 To ro Omaha und and tn City IVi Isi Chicago To ro t Paul 1190 a 90 Or thu lo rate li II I lust lint ono cue fore faro ulus 2 to any un tut point named Now ow tho tIl om itt Wit fare oat way 11 15 iliO SO comparative amount al alPer t Per nr above bOe lI Oe no IIO rato should t bl 11 SidO r ii so 1 rate published from Suit SnIt Jake oke J u charged 0 COlli para llo II In III 40 pt i r cent ent hilt II I p phun hun thu tho to ti 1 tin lii III II til It I Thu Tit iu I Ion U b d U la why wh w h CHUN ia n ii t the t I hi I t rut h t k o U r lor 1 I Iti n w ii ut it I lend wore tho the rat hlo IK tM tin II IIan tO iati an du kt 1 1 for tOr ordinal o ly l in lit III th thi oust right HIn ln ill lI II But tIll the ral Ial In its t ti it all U there UI ro IK is to IU It It |
