s 
 
 (A 
 
 HE 
 
 2757 
 W05 
 
BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 o 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
BANCROFT 
 KEWTFIELD 
 
 A SIMPLE and SURE 
 : SOLUTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRANSPORTATION 
 PROBLEM 
 
 BY 
 
 Judge Peter S.jGrosscup 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
 
 THE ONLY EFFICIENT PLAN PROPOSED 
 
 ABSOLUTELY JUST TO SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS 
 
 INDORSED BY THE LEADING MANUFACTURERS, 
 SHIPPERS AND CONSUMERS THROUGHOUT THE 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 FREIGHT PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 PUBLISHERS OF 
 
 FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM 
 
 116 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK CITY 
 
WHY THE GROSSCUP PLAN IS THE BEST. 
 
 No Business Man in This Country Can Afford to Be " Too Busy " to Neglect 
 Reading This Concise Statement The Subject Vitally Concerns Every Manu- 
 facturer, Shipper, Consignee and Jobber Here Is the Freight Rate Leg- 
 islation Situation in a Nutshell It Is a Duty You Owe to 
 Yourself to Read This Carefully. 
 
 "~FHE Esch-Townsend Bill, which provided for the placing in the 
 hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to 
 name a new freight rate found by the Commission to be unjustly ex- 
 cessive or unreasonable, and which passed the House of Representa- 
 tives last winter, is dead. It died when the Fifty-ninth Congress ex- 
 pired in March, 1905. It was an ill-considered and unwise measure, 
 and suited no one. If it had passed Congress it would have been of 
 no possible help to shippers. Under a mistaken impression, and as 
 it was the only measure before the country at the time, it was in- 
 dorsed by some shippers, but was vigorously opposed by other ship- 
 pers and consignees and by the entire railroad world. Had it passed, 
 the railroads would have fought it on constitutional grounds, if on 
 no other, and it would have been years before the question of its con- 
 stitutionality alone was settled. 
 
 When nothing better offered, FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM, 
 as the recognized mouthpiece of the great manufacturing and ship- 
 ping public of the United States, advocated legislation along the lines 
 of the Quarles-Cooper Bill (in some of its provisions similar to the 
 Esch-Townsend Bill), but as there is no chance of such legis- 
 lation being enacted, it is now advocating the adoption of the 
 plan put forth recently by Judge Peter S. Grosscup to settle the 
 transportation problem, as FREIGHT is convinced that this plan will 
 actually give immediate relief to shippers, and will entirely do away 
 with the protracted and fruitless hearings before the Commission, 
 which now make the administration of the Interstate Commerce 
 Law practically ineffectual. In other words, the Grosscup plan is a 
 short cut to justice. The proposition briefly is this : 
 
 Create a transportation department of the Government, head- 
 ed by a live, aggressive man, and give to this secretary or com- 
 missioner the best assistants (some of them taken from the rail- 
 road ranks) the country can afford. This department is to have 
 the sole duty of investigating, arbitrating and prosecuting all com- 
 plaints of discrimination, unjust rates and unfair practices of every 
 description by the railroads, and if unable to settle disputes be- 
 tween shippers and carriers informally, is to present the com- 
 
BANCROFT L/ 
 
 plaints at once to a special court of transportation, to be created, // L 2 
 the judges of which will be required to devote their entire time to 
 traffic questions. The judges will sit together in Washington 
 and separately throughout the country, so that complaints will 
 be received and acted upon with the least possible delay. The 
 department of transportation, acting for the shipper, will prose- 
 cute the case. The shipper will be put to no expense for coun- 
 sel. The only appeal from this special court will lie to the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, and then solely on questions 
 of law. 
 
 It is proper to say that opponents of the Grosscup plan declare that 
 it would give the legislative power to the proposed court, and 
 this, it is claimed, would be in violation of the Constitu- 
 tion. That this view is erroneous is most plainly and convincingly set 
 forth by Judge Grosscup on pages 10, n and 12. 
 
 Under the present procedure the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion, at the request of a shipper or on its own motion, may institute 
 an inquiry of complaints of unreasonable rates or unjust discrimina- 
 tion, and if it finds that the carrier has violated the law, it may order 
 the defendant road to cease its unlawful practices, but it has no 
 power to enforce its decisions. The only method allowed under the 
 law is for it to apply to the Circuit Court of the United States to 
 compel the carrier to obey the Commission's decision. The hearings 
 before the Commission frequently take many months, and usually 
 considerably more than a year elapses from the time of filing of the 
 complaint before the Commission renders its decision. Then if the 
 case goes to the Circuit Court a large part of the testimony taken 
 before the Commission is gone over again, and much new evidence is 
 generally submitted by the defendant railroad, so that in some cases 
 it is six or seven years before a final determination is reached; the 
 average time consumed, in such circumstances, is three or four years. 
 
 Even if power were given to the Commission to enforce its de- 
 cisions and to fix freight rates, which would be the actual result under 
 the Esch-Townsend Bill or any similar measure, it should be remem- 
 bered that the railroads would still have the constitutional right to 
 appeal from the decision of the Commission should they believe 
 that the new rates named would be confiscatory deprive them of 
 property without due process of law and there is no doubt that the 
 railroads would fight every decision of the Commission along such 
 lines to the court of last resort, and by means of injunction proceed- 
 ings would still make it impossible for the shipper to obtain relief for 
 years. Every case in which the rights of a citizen or corporation are 
 involved must ultimately go to the courts. The Grosscup plan takes 
 the complaint at once to the courts and will afford relief to shippers 
 within a few months. 
 
 The agitation to remedy existing conditions has extended over 
 

 seven or eight years, and what has been the result? Nothing. What 
 shippers want is something accomplished, something done. Shippers 
 want to know that when they suffer from injustice on the part of the 
 common carriers they will obtain speedy relief. As Judge Grosscup 
 concisely sums up the situation: 
 
 "The core of the evil as things stand at present is that nothing is 
 done. My suggestion is only this: Set into motion machinery that will 
 be fair to the public and the railroads, and thus do something toward 
 giving the country equal conditions and fair rates. Such machinery 
 a department to investigate and prosecute, and a court to decide 
 would give the shipper what he has "not now: a quick apprehension 
 by a competent department of any given wrong and a speedy adjudi- 
 cation and rectification of it by an impartial and competent tribunal. 
 Such machinery would give the country what it has not now ade- 
 quacy, intelligence and uniformity in rate regulation. With the right 
 man at the head of the department, with the right judges in the 
 court, there need be no fear on the part of shippers that the plan will 
 be inefficient, and no fear on the part of the carriers that it will work 
 injustice, and that is all that either party in this discussion has the 
 right to expect." 
 
 The Grosscup plan is a simple and entirely feasible proposition, 
 and is the only efficient and sure solution of the transportation prob- 
 lem thus far advanced by anyone. It is fair to the shippers and fair 
 to the carriers. It deserves and is receiving the support of leading 
 manufacturers, producers, shippers and consignees of the country. The 
 following pages are fully worth the most careful and painstaking 
 study of every business man in the United States. 
 
 If there is anything in the Grosscup plan you do not fully un- 
 derstand, write to the Editor of FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' 
 FORUM. 
 
A Simple and Sure Solution 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM 
 
 V 
 
 By JUDGE PETER S. GROSSCUP, 
 
 Of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 WHATEVER may be its legal status, a policy of discrimination 
 that gives to one set of persons in a community rates that are 
 refused to the balance of that community, or to certain communities 
 rates that are refused to other communities, is a policy of injustice, 
 unjust both to the persons and communities discriminated against 
 and unjust to the people of the United States as an entirety. 
 
 It is none the less unjust that the means used to accomplish the 
 discrimination may have been indirect. Secret rebates are as unjust 
 as direct differences in rates. Arrangements by which the private 
 cars of a particular shipper are hauled at a reduction that substantially 
 overmeasures the capital invested by the shipper irr such cars, and 
 arrangements to divide rates with shippers, who pretend to be oper- 
 ating independent railroads that in fact are only switches, in a ratio 
 not measured by legitimate switch charges all these, and all other 
 devices of their kind, are equally unjust, for the injustice of the thing, 
 whether it be accomplished directly or by circumlocution, is in the 
 fact that one set of shippers are thus enabled to get their goods into 
 a market at a cost that competitive shippers cannot obtain. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States has held that it is not 
 discrimination within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Law 
 to charge the big shipper a rate less than the little shipper. I know 
 the argument on which that is founded, and I appreciate its strength. 
 It is true that it costs less per ton to carry a large bulk than a small 
 bulk. It is true that a less percentage of profit can be reasonably 
 charged to the wholesaler than to the retailer. But these arguments 
 made in behalf of discrimination miss the mark, miss the whole core 
 of the subject. 
 
 In this country there is no such thing as size to a business man. 
 
The man of little size expects to get big. He has a right to get big. 
 He has a right to have the atmosphere of equal opportunity and 
 equal conditions in which to grow, and excepting, of course, some 
 unit, such as a ton or a car, the charge ought to be the same for the 
 little as for the big shipper. 
 
 I say, as the law now stands on that subject, what is permitted 
 under the law is an unjust thing and ought to be corrected by law. 
 
 Now with this law on the subject of rebates, both direct and 
 indirect, and this amendment to the law upon the subject of dis- 
 crimination, governed by the size of shipments or the amount that 
 each shipper is giving to the railroads yearly, it seems to me that 
 the present law is pretty full and competent to meet the conditions. 
 I do not believe that we need much new prohibitive legislation. We 
 have on our statute books already ample provision against rebates, 
 except perhaps for some amendments on the subject of discrimina- 
 tion between those who ship on a large scale and those who ship on 
 a small scale. I do not believe we need much, if any, legislation on 
 the subject of reasonableness of rates. The present Interstate Com- 
 merce Act in one of its very first sections provides that all rates shall 
 be reasonable and just. And it seems to me that the present law as 
 it now stands is able to meet the question of the unreasonableness of 
 rates. What is the law as it now stands? Upon a complaint being 
 made to the Circuit Court that a rate is unreasonable the court, if it 
 finds that the rate is unreasonable, may enter an order finding such 
 rate unreasonable, and thereafter the railroad company is not at lib- 
 erty to charge that rate. 
 
 Before the Circuit Court can find a rate unreasonable it must 
 first find, as a postulate, what is a reasonable rate, so that the courts 
 under the present law have not simply to find judicially what rate is 
 unreasonable, but to find a postulate to that judicial determination 
 what rate would be reasonable. And I take it that in any given case 
 where the court declared that the rate complained of was unreason- 
 able, and that the given named rate was reasonable, it would not 
 be the policy, it could not be the policy of the railroads of this coun- 
 try to fly in the face of that judgment of the court. I take it for 
 granted that the railroad companies would not on the morrow charge 
 a rate other than that pronounced by the court to be reasonable; for 
 if they did, such charge would subject them to immediate reprosecu- 
 tion for the same offense for which the company had been tried the 
 day before. 
 
 Thus, through its power to determine that a given rate is unrea- 
 sonable, the court has practically the judicial power to deternfine 
 what rate is reasonable and to enforce that power. 
 
 The core of the evil is that as things now stand nothing is done. 
 In my judgment the reason of this is, not so much the difficulty of 
 the law as it is the difficulty of its administration. One of the reasons 
 
is the incompetency, the total incompetency of the Circuit Court to 
 pass upon that question. What is the daily life of a Circuit Court 
 judge? One day he is exploring the intricacies of a patent case, fol- 
 lowing it through all its meanderings to its incubation away back in 
 some inventor's brain. Another day he is hearing a personal injury 
 case, with his sympathies in rigid control lest they should outweigh 
 his judgment. On another day he is hearing some customs case, 
 determining whether the particular goods under consideration come 
 within this or within some other classification of the law. Another 
 day he is pursuing the meanderings of some chancery case. Every 
 day brings up ^some new subject covering some wide area upon 
 which he has to be specially educated for the day's judgment. 
 
 Now call him from this judgment seat to determine a question 
 that turns, not upon the particular rate that is laid before him, but 
 which must take in the whole horizon of the country's commerce 
 that is as perplexing, as confusing, as intricate as the wire fences 
 that the Russians put around their fortifications in the Far East to 
 keep out the Japanese. Call him to take out of its place with the 
 judicial forceps one of this class of cases, as the watchmaker would 
 take out a wheel or a peg from a watch. It is a thing he can't do 
 without taking out the whole inside of the whole rate or transporta- 
 tion system; call him to decide that question, and you will, submit 
 one of the greatest, the most perplexing, the most difficult questions 
 to a man who has had no education, no vision of the subject upon 
 which he is expected to rule. Thus I say that the Circuit Court is 
 an incompetent court. 
 
 In the nation there resides the reserve power of supervision and 
 control a power that the nation must exercise in the interest of 
 equal citizenship. I do not believe that the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission, either as at present organized or as it could be or- 
 ganized, is a public body to whom we should give this great power. 
 The Interstate Commerce Commission from its very inception has 
 attempted to follow what it regarded as its judicial functions, rather 
 than its administrative functions. And this difficulty is inherent in 
 the situation. One thing is as axiomatic as the Government itself, 
 from which no popular Government can escape and that is, that the 
 man who inquires and prosecutes ought not to be the judge, and that 
 the man who sits in judgment ought not to be the man who inquires 
 or prosecutes. Would it be right of me, having enjoined some of 
 these railroads from giving rebates or the different trusts under the 
 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to go out and hunt up instances of the vio- 
 lation of that injunction? The moment that I get into the work of 
 limiting up proof I destroy my equilibrium and poise as a judge. 
 
 The judge who tries to remain a judge becomes an inefficient and 
 unsuccessful prosecutor; and the prosecutor who tries to be an effi- 
 cjent and a successful prosecutor unfits himself at that instant to be 
 
a judge. The two functions are incompatible and should be sep- 
 arated. They were separated in the Interstate Commerce Act. The 
 Commission was looked upon by the framers of that act as a board 
 of inquiry, and, having made inquiry, the board to prosecute. The 
 Circuit Court was looked upon as the power to judge. But for rea- 
 sons I have named the commission has failed. For the reasons I 
 have named the court has failed. 
 
 The Plan. 
 
 I would put in the place of the present Commission some depart- 
 ment of the Government, like the Comptroller of the^Currency, like the 
 Secretary or Commissioner of Corporations some executive, ready, 
 mobile, active department of the Government. Let a department of 
 the Government be created at least a bureau whose sole duty it 
 would be to see that the railroads obey the law; which would feel 
 that its sole duty was not to judge but to find out; not to adjudicate, 
 but to complain; not to sit on a bench, but to go out and look up 
 where complaints had been made by citizens that a wrong was being 
 done to them or to their community. Give to that department 
 the aid of the ablest men that can be found in the country. One of 
 the great difficulties in public life is that the public does not compete 
 with the corporation in getting the. best brains that the country pos- 
 sesses. In pursuit of such men I would go into the railroad ranks. 
 I know railroad men just as public spirited, just as impartial and ten 
 times as able as I am, who, for a reasonable salary and a safe tenure 
 could be detached from their present occupations and made servants 
 of the Government. In that way I would give to the Government 
 the efficiency and ability that the railroads enjoy, and the impartiality 
 that the Government ought to have. 
 
 Then, having equipped the Government with a department for in- 
 quiry and prosecution a department whose sole duty it would be 
 to inquire and prosecute I think it would be wise to create a sep- 
 arate court of transportation, giving its members a life tenure like the 
 present judges of the United States courts, but requiring them to 
 devote their entire time to railroad cases. I would construct a court 
 taken from among the best men of the country, with lay members, 
 perhaps from some of these railroad men who are so experienced in 
 this whole complex subject of rate making, and give to that court 
 the exclusive jurisdiction of transportation. I would not bother it 
 with patents, nor with chancery mysteries, nor with personal injury 
 cases, but I would make it incumbent on and profitable to them to 
 study the whole railroad situation as if they were the servants of 
 the road, so far as proficiency was concerned, but to be the unbiased 
 and impersonal servants of the people so far as justice was concerned. 
 Let there be five or seven judges. Let them sit together in Wash- 
 ington and separately throughout the country. Whenever a com- 
 
plaint was awaiting investigation a judge of the court would be on 
 hand to give immediate investigation. 
 
 It would be unnecessary to create any great number of offices 
 for such a court. The clerks of the United States courts as they 
 now exist could be clerks ex-officio of this court. The marshals of 
 the United States could be marshals ex-officio of this court. The 
 juries assembled at every point where United States Circuit and Dis- 
 trict courts are sitting could be made interchangeable with juries in 
 the courts where this court would sit. This court could go on the 
 circuit individually, member for member, whenever complaint had 
 been made, and within a week, two weeks or three weeks at most, 
 after this executive officer of the Government had lodged his com- 
 plaint, would have the machinery in motion that would bring final 
 judgment. If the case was so large or complex that it ought to have 
 the judgment of the whole court he could reserve it for the whole 
 court, and within a month the whole court could sit at some central 
 point, such as Washington, and consider the case. But often he 
 could dispose of it himself, as your judges and different great centres 
 of the country are disposing of questions just as large, involving 
 just as much to the people who are litigants. 
 
 I would equip the court with all the powers of a court of chancery 
 to enforce its judgments. The court could sit en bane at stated 
 periods to hear appeals or whenever an unusual case was pressing it. 
 Rate railroad problems could be decided by the court en bane, in the 
 first instance, instead of a judge individually. There would be ap- 
 peals on constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and the Supreme Court would preserve its power of super- 
 vision by means of writs of certiorari, such as now prevail in the 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, for the purpose of preserving the uniform- 
 ity of the law. 
 
 Such machinery a department to investigate and prosecute, and 
 a court to decide would give the shipper what he has not now a 
 quick apprehension by a competent department of any given wrong 
 and a quick adjudication and rectification of it by an impartial and 
 competent tribunal. Such machinery, too, would give the country 
 what it has not now adequacy, intelligence and uniformity in rate 
 regulation. My suggestion is only this: Set into motion machinery 
 that will be fair to the public and the railroads, and thus do some- 
 thing toward giving the country equal conditions and fair rates. 
 
 Let me suggest to my railroad friends that a solution so simple 
 and so effective ought to be made the policy, not simply of the think- 
 ing people, who are not interested in railroad rates except as look- 
 ers-on, but of the railroad men themselves. The greatest aid, the 
 most efficient help, to the socialistic movement that seems to be 
 spreading over the country, are the men who, having possessed 
 themselves of power and wealth through corporations, refuse to 
 
 9 
 
submit to just regulation and control. Let me ask you, my railroad 
 friends, not to balk, not to obstruct, not to be content to find fault; 
 but to join those who intend to be fair in formulating in this matter 
 a specific proposal that will meet the just demands and expectations 
 of the country. Now is your hour; will you not rise to its responsi- 
 bilities? 
 
 Constitutional Questions Involved. 
 
 (Reprinted from June and July, 1905, issues of FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM.) 
 
 FREIGHT asks me to put, in a few words, my view on the constitu- 
 tionality of the railroad rate plan proposed by me. The plan is sim- 
 ple, and its constitutionality can be put in a few words. From the 
 time the occupation of common carriers began a long time before 
 the railroad was known the law of England and America imposed 
 this duty: That the rates to be charged by common carriers should 
 be reasonable and just. It was the common law of England, in this 
 respect, that was transferred bodily to the law of the several Ameri- 
 can States. And it was the same common law, so far as interstate 
 commerce is concerned, that was transferred potentially to the Fed- 
 eral Government, in that provision of the Constitution that em- 
 powers the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce. 
 No lawyer, I think, will deny this. And the Interstate Commerce 
 Act of 1887 expressly recognizes and embodies it. It will thus be 
 seen that the Federal Government 'has full power to see to it that, 
 so far as interstate commerce is concerned, the rates to be charged 
 shall be reasonable and just. 
 
 The single modification of this immemorial law, irrvolved in the 
 plan proposed by me, is, that while at common law, when rates ex- 
 acted were unreasonable and unjust, it was only the shipper who 
 could complain, in the plan proposed it is the Government in loco 
 parens that can intervene as the representative of all the shippers. 
 But this modification is not new. It was clearly recognized in the 
 railway injunction cases. It embodies only a well established func- 
 tion of government. And it was re-enacted, in the Elkins Act, into 
 the form of statutory law. Here then is the constituional power, to 
 my mind clear beyond doubt, for a department or bureau that, as 
 representative of the shippers, will inquire and prosecute; and a 
 court to adjudge and to put its judgment into execution. 
 
 Indeed, the real question involved in this discussion is not a 
 question of constitutional law. It is a question, rather, of fact, viz., 
 Would the plan proposed furnish machinery efficient and adequate? 
 Would it bring about rates reasonable and just? Would it bring 
 about such rates without delay? 
 
 Let me answer this question by a simple illustration: Suppose a 
 given rate between Chicago and New York be deemed by the de- 
 
 10 
 
partment unreasonable and unjust; suppose that, on complaint of 
 the Government, this rate is adjudged by the court to be unreason- 
 able and unjust what assurance would we have, under the plan 
 proposed, that a rate reasonable and just would be substituted? The 
 answer seems plain. 
 
 To determine that a rate is unreasonable and unjust the court 
 must first determine what rate would be reasonable and just. True, 
 the reasonableness and justness of rates is a somewhat variable quan- 
 tity, depending upon circumstance. But to determine whether a 
 departure from the reasonable rate named by the court in its judgment 
 is justifiable or not would not be a very difficult question; and, in 
 the absence of justification, the departure could be so penalised that 
 no carrier would like to fly in its face; and the power that gives to 
 the Government the right to forbid a rate that is unreasonable and 
 unjust includes the right to so penalize the charging of an unjust 
 and unreasonable rate, especially after knowledge has been judicially 
 brought home to the carrier what rate, under existing circumstances, 
 is just and reasonable. 
 
 With the right man at the head of the department and the right 
 judges in the court, there need be no fear, I think, on the part of 
 shippers that the plan will be inefficient, and no fear on the part of 
 the carriers that it will work injustice. And that is all that either 
 party in this discussion has the right to expect. 
 
 MAY 24, 1905. PETER S. GROSSCUP. 
 
 There is so much confused thinking on what is called, in this 
 matter of rate making, the "legislative function" and what is called 
 the "judicial function" that perhaps a plain statement of the situa- 
 tion, without argument, may not be out of place. 
 
 To the legislature that is, to Congress, in the matter of inter- 
 state commerce, and to the State assemblies, in State commerce has 
 been committed the power to determine rates, subject, of course, to 
 the limitation that the railroads are not thereby deprived of their 
 property without due process of law. This power may be exercised 
 by the legislature either specifically, by the fixing of specific rates, or 
 generally, by providing, as the common law now provides, that no 
 rate shall be unreasonable. When the legislature chooses to fix the 
 rate specifically, the function of the court is confined to the deter- 
 mination of whether the rate so fixed is, in effect, confiscatory. But 
 when the legislature chooses to exercise its power generally, as that 
 rates shall not be unreasonable, the function of the court is to deter- 
 mine whether the specific rate fixed by the carrier is in fact within 
 this legislative mandate; for only in this way could an individual 
 obtain his right under law, and to determine individual rights under 
 law is always a judicial function. 
 
 There is no decision of the Supreme Court that, reasonably read, 
 controverts or tends to controvert this view of the law. True, there 
 
 11 
 
are decisions that the legislature has the power to fix rates. That 
 I have already stated. True, there are decisions that when the rates 
 are thus specifically fixed by the legislature as, for instance, in the 
 Dakota case, 3 cents per mile for passengers the function of the 
 court is confined to determining whether the mandatory fixing of 
 such rate would be the taking of property without due process of law. 
 That, too, I have already stated. But there is no case that holds that, 
 where the legislative mandate respecting rates is confined simply to 
 the command that the rates shall be reasonable, the courts are with- 
 out power, in administering the rights of individuals under the law, 
 to determine what rate is reasonable and what rate is not reason- 
 able. Indeed, to so hold would be, practically, to say to the shipper, 
 or the Government, acting in loco parens for the shipper, that though 
 under the law the shipper had a right to a reasonable rate, there ivas 
 no power in the courts to secure to him such right. That plainly 
 would be an absurdity. 
 
 Let the distinction not be lost sight of. The legislature estab- 
 lishes rights. The courts enforce them. When the legislature estab- 
 lishes a right so specifically that no occasion arises for the court, by 
 external inquiry, to determine what the legislature meant, no such 
 inquiry will be instituted. But when the right established is so gen- 
 eral that, except through external inquiry, the court would be in 
 ignorance of what was the specific right established, as applied to the 
 case in hand, the inquiry will be instituted. And an inquiry thus in- 
 stituted, though executing the legislative will, is the exercise of a 
 judicial function. P. S. GROSSCUP. 
 
 CHICAGO, June 27, 1905. 
 
 PRESIDENT HADLEY FAVORS SPECIAL COURT. 
 
 (From the paper written by Arthur T. Hartley, of Yale, and copyrighted, 1905, by the 
 Boston Evening Transcript.) 
 
 While Congress could undoubtedly increase the powers of the 
 Interstate Commerce Commission if it wanted to, and that without 
 any serious financial damage to the railroads, it is improbable that 
 such action would result in much good to the public. 
 
 The power to make rates for the traffic of the United States is too 
 vast a thing to be handled by the machinery of the Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission, even if the power and expense of that machinery 
 were considerably increased. The initiation of a successful rate policy 
 must come from the owner, not from somebody else who tries to con- 
 trol the action of the owner. Governments have been sometimes suc- 
 cessful in their rate making when they operated their roads; but I do 
 not know a single instance of really successful rate making by a Gov- 
 ernment which attempted to control roads that somebody else 
 operated. 
 
 12 
 
If we put our rate making power into the hands of the Interstate 
 Commerce Commission we might possibly have a more even 
 schedule than we have at present. But if the schedules were adhered 
 to it would unquestionably mean much higher rates and smaller vol- 
 ume of traffic than we now enjoy; and if it were not adhered to, the 
 evils of the discriminations which all men who have studied the sub- 
 ject regard as the most serious evil connected with railroad rates 
 would tend not to diminish but to increase. 
 
 The appointment of a special railroad court seems a more prom- 
 ising means of dealing with our difficulties than an increase of the 
 power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. There is enough 
 that is distinctive in railroad cases and the precedents connected with 
 them to warrant the creation of a body of judges whose learning is 
 to be specially devoted to this branch of the law. I believe that the 
 attempt to confine the activity of this court to cases already decided 
 by the Interstate Commerce Commission would prove futile and 
 vexatious. What is the use, say the opponents of such a court, of 
 arranging to have every question decided twice? Why not have the 
 thing done all at once, instead of introducing an additional piece of 
 machinery which is expensive in its character and uncertain in its 
 workings? 
 
 The objection to having two different bodies to do the same work 
 twice over is real and sound. Given a body of men who are neither 
 judges nor technical experts, but who assume to perform the func- 
 tions which belong both to judges and technical experts, you are 
 practically certain to find a great many of their decisions reversed. 
 
 The question may be asked whether any court, however well 
 trained its members, could make the rules which we need for the 
 regulation of interstate traffic in the United States. It would doubt- 
 less have authority to declare certain rates unreasonable; but could it 
 indicate clearly how much rates would have to be reduced in order 
 to be reasonable? Could it make negative rules which would result 
 in positive reforms? We might admit that these reforms would 
 not come quite so fast as radical reformers desire; but I believe they 
 would come more surely and permanently in this way than in any 
 other. A negative rule which will be upheld and obeyed is a good 
 deal better basis of practical reform than a positive rule whose au- 
 thority is uncertain. 
 
 The history of equity jurisdiction in its various branches shows 
 that when the higher courts of any country have really made up 
 their mind to get certain things done they get them done; and that 
 the attempt to secure the same result faster by means of short cuts 
 creates so much confusion and uncertainty as to delay the very con- 
 summation which it has been intended to hasten. The Interstate 
 Commerce Commission represents just such a short cut; and I con- 
 fess that I see no indication that it has proved or is going to prove 
 
 13 
 
\ 
 
 more successful than most other experiments of the same sort. Its 
 members wish to have part of the duties of a traffic manager and 
 part of the authority of a Federal judge, without necessarily having 
 the previous experience which goes with the successful exercise of 
 either function. From such antecedent conditions I do not see how 
 we can expect successful consequences. 
 
 The need of some expert authority which shall represent the 
 court, as distinct from either of the contending parties, becomes verjr 
 great. Such a technical commission should, I think, include three 
 men who were trained in the traffic department of the railroad ser- 
 vice, one in the operating department and one in the financial de- 
 partment. It would not be necessary or even desirable to include 
 a representative of the shippers, or a representative of the legal de- 
 partment of railroads. The presence of such men on the commission 
 would simply obscure the purpose for which it was intended the 4 
 purpose of ascertaining facts needed by the court as a basis for its 
 decision. The court itself would be competent to furnish the justice 
 and the law. 
 
 GROSSCUP PLAN INDORSED. 
 
 A large number of indorsements of Judge Grosscup's plan have 
 been received by FREIGHT since May i. Among them was one from 
 J. S. George, of Hutchinson, Kan., president of the Kansas Federa- 
 tion of Commercial Interests. He wrote: 
 
 Having carefully read Judge Grosscup's plan for the regulation of railroads, 
 I am of the opinion that thus far nothing better has been offered by the many 
 writers and speakers on the subject, and it would probably be as well to try 
 the experiment of railroad regulation under this plan as any other. What our 
 shippers and producers most need is a "short cut" to justice that Will prevent 
 the interminable delays that the railroads heretofore have been able to inter- 
 pose in actions brought against them. 
 
 I take pleasure as chairman of the Hutchinson Commercial Club in signing 
 the resolutions you so kindly inclose and handing them to you herewith. As 
 president of the Kansas Federation of Commercial Interests, en^podying in ils 
 membership most of the larger shipping interests of this State, I also earnestly 
 indorse the work you are doing. 
 
 Arthur F. Francis, secretary of the Trans-Mississippi Commercial 
 Congress, wrote: 
 
 I read your argument and also the arguments of Professor Hadley with much 
 interest, and will cheerfully submit the draft of the resolution to the executive 
 committee for action. Your suggestion is along the line of the work of this 
 organization for several years, which has been to secure, if possible, a just, 
 equitable and speedy solution of this question. The commercial interests of 
 the States and Territories west of the Mississippi River represented by this or- 
 ganization are in constant peril so long as this question is unsettled. 
 
 Milo Ward, secretary of the Commercial Club, of Des Moines, 
 la., wrote: 
 
 I think your suggestion the be t yet. This matter of freight rates is of so 
 much importance that the best, the most practical and fairest plan should be 
 
 14 
 
worked out. If it is not fair and just to the railroads it won't stand, as you sug- 
 gest. For this reason the idea which you advance, namely, that commercial 
 bodies should hold a convention and appoint a committee to confer with the 
 committee appointed by the railroads and agree upon the Grosscup plan, or 
 a better one, if it is advanced, seems to me should be followed. Thank you 
 for all the information given us, and \ve assure you of our interest. 
 
 We are pleased to be furnished with a copy of your views upon this impor- 
 tant question of the day. Inasmuch as you have made a careful study of the mat- 
 ter your opinion constitutes a valuable contribution to the information which 
 \ve have accumulated. 
 
 W. S. Tilton, secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of El Paso, 
 Tex., in forwarding the resolutions adopted by the organization, 
 wrote as follows: 
 
 Our transportation committee is in entire accord with the proposition sought 
 to be accomplished by continued and persistent agitation of this question and 
 embodied in this resolution. The present method of obtaining relief against 
 unjust and unequal rates of transportation is entirely inadequate and in many 
 cases futile. 
 
 The following came from D. H. Merriam, secretary of the Fitch- 
 burg Merchants' Association, of Fitchburg, Mass.: 
 
 The plan which Judge Grosscup has suggested seemed to meet the approval 
 of our members and the resolutions were unanimously adopted at the last 
 meeting. 
 
 From J. Frank Drake, secretary Springfield Board of Trade, 
 Springfield, Mass.: 
 
 The Board of Trade considered this question (increased supervision of the 
 railroads by the Government) a year ago, and at that time did not feel that it 
 could give its unqualified indorsement to any bill that was then before Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Personally, the plan outlined by Judge Grosscup seems to be a very practi- 
 cal one, and it will give me great pleasure to bring it to the attention of the 
 board of directors at their next regular meeting. 
 
 From John J. Telford, secretary of the Louisville Board of Trade: 
 
 I have your favor on the subject of Judge Grosscup's method of settling the 
 transportation problem. If this could be done legally I believe it would settle 
 ihe v*'bole question, and I do not think it would be objectionable to the railway 
 companies. I have read your articles in the June issue with a great deal of 
 interest, and would like to compliment you on the paper you are getting out 
 just now. 
 
 In returning the resolutions, signed, G. Wilson Jones, secretary of 
 the Retail Lumber Dealers' Association of the State of New York, 
 wrote : 
 
 We are greatly interested in this matter and hope the efforts may be success- 
 ful. 
 
 FYom Carr W. Taylor, attorney for the Kansas Board of Railroad 
 Commissioners : 
 
 I most heartily indorse the Judge Grosscup plan. 
 
 George F. Mead, president of the National League of Commis- 
 sion Merchants, wrote: ''Your measure to me seems a good one, but 
 wherein does it reach and remedy the private car line evil, from which 
 the members of our association suffer so severely?" [This was 
 answered editorially in the May issue of FREIGHT.] 
 
 15 
 
In acknowledging the receipt of FREIGHT'S circular letter of April 
 22, calling attention to the Grosscup plan, some of the secretaries of 
 commercial organizations said that the subject would be brought up 
 for discussion at the annual meetings in the fall. A few referred 
 to the fact that their associations had supported the Quarles-Cooper 
 Bill, so considered it unwise to indorse any plan except one on simi- 
 lar lines. It is interesting to note that two of the largest commer- 
 cial organizations in the country, the National Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation and the Millers' National Federation, which last year adopted 
 resolutions favoring the proposed increase in the powers of the In- 
 terstate Commerce Commission, this year ignored the subject, their 
 resolutions simply dealing with the question of rebates and dis- 
 crimination. A large number of organizations throughout the coun- 
 try have already adopted resolutions indorsing the Grosscup plan. 
 
 Indorsed by Representative Concerns and Individuals. 
 About the middle of June, to ascertain the sentiment of shippers 
 generally, FREIGHT began sending out the following form of indorse- 
 ment to its subscribers, to be signed by the recipient in case the plan 
 met his approval: 
 
 We. the undersigned merchants, jobbers, manufacturers and shippers of the 
 
 State of hereby indorse the following plan put forth by Judge Peter S. 
 
 Grosscup, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, for settling the trans- 
 portation problem and for the speedy remedying of all traffic abuses : Create a 
 transportation department of the Government; this new department to have the 
 sole duty of investigating and prosecuting all complaints of discrimination, un- 
 just rates and unfair practices of every description by the railroads; it to be the 
 duty of this department to present them at once to a special court of transpor- 
 tation, the judges of which should be appointed for life and be required to de- 
 vote their entire time to railroad cases; the judges to sit together in Washing- 
 ton and separately throughout the country, so that complaints would be re- 
 ceived and acted upon with the least possible delay ; the only appeal from this 
 court to lie to the Supreme Court of the United States, and then solely on 
 questions of law. 
 
 This plan would give to shippers a quick apprenension by a competent de- 
 partment of any given wrong and a speedy adjudication and rectification of it 
 by an impartial and competent tribunal. 
 
 Out of the great mass of correspondence which followed, the fol- 
 lowing replies, which arrived up to July 8, are selected as indicating 
 the wide interest felt in the subject by prominent commercial houses: 
 We return herewith the memorandum inclosed with your circular letter, 
 properly signed. 
 
 If you will please send me about 500 of the slips relative to establishing the 
 transportation department of the Government I will be glad to have them sent, 
 similar to yours, to all the members of the National Paint, Oil and Varnish 
 Association and the Paint Grinders' Association of the United States. 
 
 HEATH & MILLIGAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 
 
 Chicago, 111. Ernest T. Trigg, General Manager. 
 
 We are in receipt of your letter, inclosing indorsement, which we herewith 
 return to you, properly signed. S. E. WORMS & Co., Ltd. 
 
 New Orleans, La. 
 
 16 
 
\Ye read Judge Grosscup's article in the June issue of your publication and 
 will say that we are in hearty accord with this movement, and we inclose here- 
 with the indorsement properly signed by us. as you requested. If there is any- 
 thing that we can do to further the good cause we would be very glad to do so. 
 There are a great many irregularities in the freight business that we feel should 
 be corrected. THE ADVANCE LUMBER COMPANY, 
 
 Cleveland. Ohio. By E. B. Smith. 
 
 Your plan of creating a transportation department of the Government and 
 referring to it all complaints of discrimination, freight rates, etc., by railroads, 
 has our hearty approval and I have signed the blank' and inclose the same. 
 Cleveland, Ohio. F. F. PRENTICE, 
 
 President of the Cleveland Twist Drill Company. 
 
 We have your esteemed favor, inclosing article by Judge Grosscup, and we 
 beg to return same herewith (signed) and wish to say that we most heartily in- 
 dorse the same. SIMONDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 
 Chicago, 111. W. L. Taylor, Traffic Manager. 
 
 In reply to your letter would say we are heartily in favor of Judge Gross- 
 cup's proposition, and return herewith indorsement with our signature, as re- 
 quested. Hope that you will meet with success in your undertaking. 
 
 THE CLEVELAND HARDWARE COMPANY, 
 Cleveland, Ohio. W. F. Gibbons, Sales Manager. 
 
 Replying to your favor, we quite agree with you in regard to the proposition 
 for the settlement of the transportation problem and believe you are on the right 
 path. We inclose herewith slip signed and trust it may be the means 
 of a solution of this kind, which woulS undoubtedly be of great value to all 
 concerns who are shippers of freight. 
 
 Thank you for the kindly interest manifested in the matter and trust it may 
 be successful. THE ALDEN RUBBER COMPANY. 
 
 Barberton. Ohio. 
 
 Your favor is received, and in compliance with your request we herewith re- 
 turn the petition duly signed. We believe that Judge Grosscup's idea is a good 
 one and the sooner this matter is put into shape, whereby the shipper can get 
 relief and restitution, the better it will be for the shipper. 
 Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. 
 
 THE GLOBE OIL COMPANY, 
 Cleveland. Ohio. C. D. Chamberlain, Secretary. 
 
 We have your favor. We return you the inclosure duly signed. It would 
 be a great benefit to all shippers if this could be put through. 
 
 THE SOUTHWESTERN LUMBER & Box COMPANY, 
 New Orleans, La. Per W. Scott. 
 
 In reply to your favor we inclose blank properly filled out. We believe this 
 is along the right lines and ultimately will have its effect on the action of the 
 railroad companies favorable to the shipper. E. C. ATKINS & Co, 
 
 Indianapolis, Ind. H. C. Atkins, President. 
 
 Inclosed please find signed indorsement of the transportation problem as set 
 forth by Judge Peter S. Grosscup. We trust that this plan will prove very suc- 
 cessful in the solution of the many difficulties relative to transportation. 
 
 REGAL SHOE COMPANY, Inc.. 
 
 I-.ast Whitman. Mass. Per E. P. Bliss. Treasurer. 
 
 17 
 
In compliance with your favor, we are very glad to have an opportunity of 
 signing and returning the inclosed petition to you. 
 
 THE FOREST CITY PAINT" & VARNISH COMPANY, 
 Cleveland, Ohio. W. W. Bowler, President. 
 
 Inclosed find our petition. We most heartily indorse it. In fact, the writer 
 in any possible \vay will be glad to co-operate with you. 
 
 J. H. NEUSTADT COMPANY, 
 St. Lcuis, Mo. Per J. H. Neustadt. 
 
 Agreeable with your favor, we are glad to herewith inclose our indorsement 
 to the subject of which you speak. 
 
 THE OVERMAN & SCHRADER CORDAGE COMPANY. 
 Covington, Ky. 
 
 In response to your circular letter, we sign and return the Grosscup circular 
 herewith. We take this opportunity of expressing our special appreciation of 
 the article in your May issue entitled "Lumber Overcharges Hard to Col- 
 lect." This article should be put in the hands of every lumber shipper in the 
 countiy. THE NICOLA, STONE & MYERS COMPANY, 
 
 Cle\ eland, Ohio. A. L. Stone, Secretary. 
 
 Acknowledging receipt of your favor, we beg to advise that we heartily in- 
 dorse the plan, which we have read carefully, as set forth by Judge Peter S. 
 Grosscup, in connection with tle transportation problem. We have not only 
 read Judge Grosscup's suggestion, but we have followed other writers upon this 
 subject, and the plan that he advances appears to us to be desirable. 
 
 Trusting that through your good efforts and those of others interested in 
 this subject an adjustment tray be reached which will be satisfactory to ship- 
 pers as well as to the transportation companies. 
 
 THE HASEROT CANNERIES COMPANY, 
 S. F. Haserot, President. 
 
 P. S. The writer, who is a member of the Cleveland Chamber of Com- 
 merce Freight Committee, and who is also chairman of the Committee on 
 Freight, Express and Telegraph Matters of the National Association of Pack- 
 ers of Pure Canned Foods, will, when occasion offers, present the subject to 
 those bodies. 
 Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 The writer is personally acquainted with Judge Grosscup, of Chicago, and 
 has great respect for his ideas on transportation matters. He is very glad in- 
 deed to sign the indorsement you ask for, and the same is returned herewith. 
 
 THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 
 
 Columbus, Ohio. N. C. Kingsbury. 
 
 In answer to your valued favor, received during the writer's absence, before 
 leaving for my Pacific Coast trip, I had read over your June issue and the ar- 
 ticle referred to. We inclose herewith your form, signed as you request. 
 
 THE PLOM'O SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 
 Cleveland, Ohio. S. W. Whitmore, President and General Manager. 
 
 Referring to the inclosed (the indorsement of the Grosscup plan), which I 
 have signed, believing that it covers the ground more fully than any other plan, 
 will say that while we are not antagonistic to the railroads we should have some 
 means of settling just propositions and not to be held up as we are upon one 
 pretense or another. R. L. SPENCER, 
 
 Texarkana. Ark. Manager Texarkana Freight Bureau. 
 
 18 
 

 Inclosed please fincl our indorsement of plan put forth by Judge Peter . 
 Grosscup with reference to a settlement of the transportation problem. 
 New York. D. AUERBACH & SONS. 
 
 We duly received your letter, inclosing memorandum of plan for settling 
 transportation problem. We are returning same herewith, as we believe this 
 would be the proper solution of the matter. 
 
 THE NATIONAL SCREW & TACK COMPANY, 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio. C. W. Brainerd, Secretary. 
 
 In answer to your favor you will please find inclosed herewith our indorse- 
 ment of your plai* for settling transportation problems. After carefuj consid- 
 eration it seems to us that Judge Grosscup's plan is the real solution of the 
 problem. With best wishes for its success, 
 
 GEORGE E. KEITH COMPANY, 
 
 Campello, Mass. Transportation Department. 
 
 The following list is representative of many different lines of 
 trade, and is composed of a small percentage of the firms and indi- 
 viduals who indorsed the Grosscup plan in the three weeks ending 
 July 8: 
 
 AKRON, OHIO. 
 
 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, manufacturers soft rubber goods. 
 A. J. Weeks, manufacturer stoneware. 
 
 C. S. Eddy, traffic manager the B. F. Goodrich Co., rubber manufacturers. 
 Swinehart Clincher Tire & Rubber Company, rubber manufacturers. 
 The McNeil Boiler Company, manufacturers boilers, tanks, etc. 
 
 ATLANTA, GA. 
 Gholstin-Cunningham Spring Bed Company, manufacturers of spring beds, etc. 
 
 BARBERTON, OHIO. 
 The Alden Rubber Company ; rubber manufacturers, 
 
 COLUMBUS, OHIO. 
 The Jeffrey Manufacturing Company. 
 
 PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. 
 H. J. Grimes, grain. 
 
 PORT HURON, MICH. 
 
 Port Huron Engine & Thresher Company, manufacturers engines, separators 
 and farm implements. 
 
 BRUSHY, MISS. 
 The D. C. Bacon Company, manufacturers and shippers yellow pine lumber. 
 
 BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 New England Confectionery Company. 
 The George James Company, sole leather and cut soles. 
 Tremont & Suffolk Mills, Lowell, Mass., cotton manufacturing. 
 Godfrey L. Cabot, carbon black maker; gas and oil producer. 
 
 BROCKTON, MASS. 
 George E. Keith Company, shoe manufacturers. 
 
 BROOKLYN, N. Y. 
 E. W. Bliss Company, builders of machinery. 
 
 BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 H. G. Anderson & Co., grain. 
 
 19 
 
CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 Bradner Smith & Co., paper makers and jobbers. 
 
 Simonds Manufacturing Company, manufacturers. 
 
 Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company, paint and color makers. 
 
 American Matting Importing Company, Ltd. 
 
 Edward G. Davies, commission merchant. 
 
 The Acme White Lead & Color Works, paint and color manufacturers. 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
 The H. Kruse Show Case Company, show case manufacturers. 
 
 Merkel Brothers, plumbers', steam and gas supplies. 
 
 Bender, Streiberg & Co., fruit and produce commission merchants. 
 
 John Staun & Co., leaf tobacco. 
 
 The Henderson Lithographing Company, lithographing. 
 
 Beech Hill Distilling Company, 'wholesale liquors. 
 
 The Hartwell Furniture Company, furniture. 
 
 J. L. Crosley, wholesale fruits. 
 
 The Charles Barnes Company, builders of machinery. 
 
 The Alfred Vogeler Drug Company, wholesale drugs. 
 
 The Globe- Wernicke Company. 
 
 The Cincinnati Grain Company, receivers and shippers of grain. 
 
 Mayer, Scheuer, Offner & Co., manufacturers of clothing. 
 
 I. N. Price & Co., wholesale fruits and produce. 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO. 
 
 Zone Oil Company, manufacturers lubricating oils and paints. 
 
 The Kirk-Latty Manufacturing Company, manufacturers bolts, nuts, etc. 
 
 The Loew Supply & Manufacturing Company, manufacturing. 
 
 Weideman Fries Company, jobbers of liquors. 
 
 The National Refining Company, oil. 
 
 The Nicola, Stone & Myers Company, wholesale lumber. 
 
 The Forest City Paint & Varnish Company, manufacturers paints and varnished 
 
 The Lamson & Sessions Company, manufacturers bolts, nuts, etc. 
 
 Britton T. & S. P. Day, manufa turing brokers and dealers. 
 
 Cleveland Co-Operative Stove Company, manufacturers stoves and ranges. 
 
 The Advance Lumber Company. 
 
 The Bigalow Fruit Company, jobbers fruits and produce. 
 
 The Acme Machinery Company, manufacturers bolt and nut machinery. 
 
 The Cleveland Gas & Electric Fixture Company, manufacturers gas and electric 
 
 fixtures. 
 
 The Haserot Canneries Company, canners of vegetables and fruits. 
 The North Electric Company. 
 H. E. Higgins, rolling mill and steel works. 
 The Globe Oil Company, manufacturers lubricating oils. 
 The Cleveland Hardware Company, manufacturers of vehicle hardware. 
 Guggenheimer Brothers, wholesale liquors. 
 
 The Cleveland Builders' Supply Company, manufacturers and dealers in build- 
 ers' supplies. 
 
 The Cleveland Twist Drill Company, manufacturers of twist drills. 
 Theodore Kundtz, sewing machine cabinet manufacturing. 
 The Osborn Manufacturing Company, brushes, brooms and foundry supplies. 
 The Newburgh Brick & Clay Co., manufacturers of brick and slate products. 
 The Central Lumber Company, wholesale lumber. 
 The National Screw & Tack Company, manufacturers screws and bolts. 
 
 20 
 
COVINGTON, KY. 
 The Overman-Schrader Cordage Company, cordage manufacturers. 
 
 DAYTON, OHIO. 
 National Cash Register Company. 
 
 DENVER, COL. 
 George J. Kindel, manufacturer of upholstering and bedding. 
 
 EAST WHITMAN, MASS. 
 Regal Shoe Company, manufacturers shoes. 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 
 
 E. C. Atkins & Co., saw manufacturers. 
 
 KANSAS CITY, MO. 
 
 J. A. Brubaker & Co., wholesale grain and hay. 
 Woolscy & Stahl Hay Company, wholesale and commission hay and grain. 
 
 LITTLE ROCK, ARK. 
 Dudley E. Jones Company, machinery and supplies. 
 
 MOBILE, ALA. 
 Weiss-Eichold Liquor Company, wholesale liquor dealers. 
 
 NEW ORLEANS, LA. 
 
 The Grant Furniture Company, retail furniture. 
 Leon Frank, wholesale produce. 
 J. L. Beer & Co., general wholesale produce. 
 
 S. E. Worms & Co., Ltd., wholesale furnishing goods and notions. 
 B. Rosenberg & Sons, shoe dealers and manufacturers. 
 Burkenroad Wilcox Company, Ltd., paper and woodenware. 
 Charles Sugarman, wholesale produce. . 
 William Dunn & Son, lumber. 
 
 The Southwestern Lumber & Box Company, manufacturing lumber and staves. 
 The Parker-Blake Company, Ltd.. wholesale druggists. 
 Oscar Gartner, lumber exporter. 
 American Matting Importing Company, Ltd. 
 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 Hagerty Brothers & Co., glassware. 
 
 F. O. Pierce Company, paint manufacturers. 
 
 The Morton B. Smith Company, scrap iron and steel, old metal. 
 Lasher & Lathrop, wholesale paper. 
 
 D. Auerbach & Sons, confectionery manufacturers. 
 Harrison Granite Company. 
 
 George A. Swayze, wholesale lumber. 
 Henry D. Hamilton, lawyer. 
 
 E. Nichols, adjuster. 
 
 Mills & Gibb, importers and manufacturers of dry goods. 
 
 E. J. Johnson & Co., roofing slate producers. 
 
 E. R. Durkee & Co.. wholesale spices, etc. 
 
 Butler & Kelley Company, manufacturers of fancy cards. 
 
 West End Manufacturing Company, coal tar products and paper. 
 
 Standard Table Oil Cloth Company. 
 
 21 
 
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 G. F. Wood, Bement-Miles Works of the Niles Bement Pond Company, machine 
 
 tools. 
 Rosskam Gerstley & Co., wholesale liquors. 
 
 PITTSBURG, PA. 
 Logan-Gregg Hardware Company. 
 Wilson-Snyder Manufacturing Company, pumping machinery. 
 
 ROCHESTER, N. Y. 
 
 James Cunningham Sons & Co., carriage builders. 
 Schlegel Manufacturing Company, manufacturers textile goods. 
 Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Company, manufacturers of office riling de- 
 vices. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 
 Goldberg, Bowen & Co., wholesale and retail grocers. 
 
 ST. LOUIS, MO. 
 
 J. H. Neustadt Company, parts for automobile builders. 
 
 Kraushaar Brass Manufacturing Company, brass makers and chandelier manu- 
 facturers. 
 
 Weinheimer & Opp, leaf and tobacco dealers. 
 
 Roth-Homeyer Coffee Company, coffees, teas and spices. 
 
 Lambert Pharmacal Company, manufacturers of listerine, etc. 
 
 Gerber Fruit Company, wholesale fruit and produce. 
 
 J. G. Haas Soap Company, manufacturers of soap and sal soda. 
 
 Columbia Pretzel & Baking Company, bakers. 
 
 Medart Patent Pulley Company, manufacturers of power transmission machin- 
 ery. 
 
 E. C. Robinson Lumber Company, retail lumber. 
 
 J. D. Streett & Co., oils, railroad, mill and mine supplies. 
 
 Benbow-Brammer Manufacturing Company, manufacturers of washing ma- 
 chines. 
 
 L. Garvey, president Fruit & Produce Exchange. 
 
 SYRACUSE, N. Y. 
 Kelsey Heating Company, manufacturers warm air heaters. 
 
 TOPEKA, KAN. 
 Carr W. Taylor, attorney for Kansas Board of Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 WATERTOWN, N. Y. 
 Farwell & Rhines, merchant millers. 
 
 WICHITA, KAN. 
 
 Boyle Commission Company, car lots fruits and produce. 
 Jett & Wood, wholesale grocers. 
 
 22 
 
Recognized Mouthpiece of the 
 Shipping Public 
 
 The only publication in the country solely devoted to the shipping inter- 
 ests of manufacturers, jobbers and consumers. 
 
 Its Departments are replete every issue with original 
 special matter by experts, indispensable to every busi- 
 ness man. 
 
 ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT 
 
 contains complete digests of all decisions of Federal and State 
 Courts bearing on Interstate and Intrastate Commerce. This alone 
 is worth many times the price of subscription. 
 
 Digests of all Decisions of the Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission 
 
 Expert advice on traffic and legal questions free to subscribers. 
 Thousands of the leading firms of the country, already subscribers, attest 
 the great value of 
 
 FREIGHT, THE SHIPPERS' FORUM 
 
 Subscription price, $3.00 a year. Sample copy sent on request 
 
 FREIGHT PUBLISHING CO., Publishers 
 1 1 6 Nassau St , New York City 
 
w 
 
 n 
 
 00 
 
 5' 
 
 n 
 
 C/i 
 
 P 
 
 
 p 5 
 
 S 
 
 P 
 
 00 
 
 S 
 
 <T> r-h 
 
 ~t jj 
 
 3' 
 
 
 r> 
 
 
 ni 
 
 
 rt- 
 
 2. 
 
 >-t 
 
 G. 
 
 00 
 
 3 H 
 
 Q 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 p 
 
 H 
 
 P 
 
 i 
 
 P 
 
 5T 
 o 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 rD Cf 
 
 3 P 
 
 00 
 
 5 
 
 rr\ 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 5' 
 
 3 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 r-t- 
 
 o* 
 
 ^ 
 
 P 
 
 3 
 rD 
 
 cr 
 n> 
 
 CO 
 
 CL 
 
 
 o 
 P 
 
 00 
 CD 
 00 
 
 r-f- 
 
 3" 
 
 rD 
 
 cL 
 
 O> 
 00 
 
 nirt of transportatic 
 
 g 
 
 1 
 
 ^' 
 *O 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 o' 
 o> 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 H~K 
 
 portation problem 
 this new departm 
 
 o> 
 
 cT 
 5' 
 
 P 
 
 3 
 
 ;, the undersigned 
 
 PPERS' 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 K 
 
 3 
 
 r-t- 
 
 >) 
 
 C 
 
 3* 
 
 O 
 
 J3 
 
 
 El 3 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 
 0) 
 
 cr 
 x 
 
 00 
 
 cr 
 
 ^5' 
 
 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 ft" 
 
 3" 
 
 rT 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 s 
 
 c' 
 
 CL 
 rD 
 
 p- 
 
 J? 
 
 ft- 
 
 rD 
 n 
 o 
 3- 
 P 
 3 
 
 fh 
 C/) 
 
 m 
 
 
 oa 
 3 
 
 P 
 
 3 
 
 (T> 
 
 s. 
 
 sr 
 
 00 
 
 cr 
 rT 
 p. 
 
 3- 
 
 5' 
 P 
 
 rD 
 
 00 
 O 
 
 t-K 
 
 3* 
 o' 
 
 2. 
 
 6* 
 
 cr 
 
 ro ro 
 
 a s 
 
 8 x 
 
 rT ^ 
 
 rD 
 
 cr 
 
 i 
 C 
 
 CfQ 
 rD 
 
 hj 
 
 "o* 
 
 cr 
 
 cr 
 o> 
 -t 
 
 00 
 
 Sfl 
 
 c 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 3D^ 
 
 & 
 
 
 rc> 
 
 00 
 
 *-J 
 
 3- 
 
 r^ . 3 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 
 sr 
 
 3* 
 
 5' 
 
 S- 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 >-t 
 
 p 
 
 3 ""* 
 O Cj' 
 
 >-$ 
 
 CD 
 
 c 
 
 sr 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 3" 
 
 o 
 
 tr~* 
 
 "i 
 
 
 
 
 
 pMBl 
 
 f\\ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 o' 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 P 
 3 
 
 cr 
 
 o 
 
 c^ 
 
 5' o^ 
 
 Q 
 o 
 
 r-t- 
 
 c 
 
 *-t 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 s. 
 
 r^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^r* 
 
 
 3 
 
 ^ * 
 
 r^ P 
 
 oo 
 
 00 
 
 k^ ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 fP 
 
 cr 
 
 
 P 
 
 00 
 
 *T3 
 
 i_i. 
 
 i-". """ 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 rD 
 
 9. 
 
 r ~ t ' 
 
 CTQ (-f- 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 fr 
 
 r-t- 
 
 P 
 
 
 o> 
 
 12 
 
 3" 
 
 O 
 
 &. ^ 
 
 "p 
 
 P. 
 
 EP 
 
 ^4 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 P 
 
 ro 
 
 cr 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 ^0 
 
 
 o* 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 P- 
 
 n> 
 
 C*Q o 
 
 I-H 
 
 c- 
 
 ^A 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 r- ^ 
 
 
 3* 
 
 cr 
 
 
 r-t- 
 3" 
 
 n> 
 
 P- 
 
 3 cr 
 
 oo 
 
 rt- 
 
 cr 
 
 rD 
 
 00 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 ct 
 
 -t 
 
 o 
 
 +> 
 
 C 
 
 ^ 2 
 
 """I 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 
 r-t- 
 
 CL 
 
 
 oo' 
 
 o 
 
 
 orq 
 
 P 
 
 s, 
 
 n 
 
 o - 
 
 rT 
 
 cr 
 n 
 
 wQ 
 
 o 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 c 
 
 O 
 
 p> 
 
 
 ci r\ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 P 
 
 3 
 
 
 p-t- 
 
 o 
 
 r-t- 
 
 3" 
 
 rf 
 
 1 
 
 3' rT 
 ^ p 
 
 CO 
 
 i-f- 
 
 <T> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , . 
 
 rD 
 
 ^ 
 
 s* 
 
 L - 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 r-t 
 
 S. 
 
 
 rB* 
 i-t- 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 ^5 
 g 
 T 
 
 ^ 
 p 
 
 """ P 
 
 3 
 O oo 
 
 n 
 
 O 
 
 2 
 
 *"J 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 rt> 
 
 g 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 ^IH 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 3^ 
 
 "i 
 
 1 i- 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ S 
 
 >- 
 
 
 
 ^r^B 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 n> 
 
 cn 
 
 X 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 r-f- 
 <-+- 
 
 g: g 
 
 ? 
 
 
 N^ 
 
 B 
 
 
 s. 
 
 
 C 
 
 O 
 
 s* 
 
 
 
 in S' 
 |-*t 
 
 1 t 
 
 
 
 
 N4 
 
 
 3 
 ^ 
 
 
 reme 
 
 3 1 
 P 
 
 r-t- 
 O 
 
 o 
 n> 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 M- P. 
 
 Bt | 
 
 o 
 
 w- 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 5- 
 
 o S 
 
 P-* 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 N*N 
 
 
 GTQ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 rp 
 
 rt- 
 
 2. 3 
 
 3. g 
 
 rc 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 ft- 
 
 ^ 
 
 n> 
 
 
 
 p^ . 
 
 
 ^i 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 3' 
 
 3 
 
 . 
 
 3 r-t- 
 P 
 
 ^00 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 o> 
 
 00 
 
 I' 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o ^ 
 p ^ 
 
 rT 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 r-t- 
 ' 
 
 3 
 n 
 n> 
 
 c 
 
 5. O 
 
 oo 
 m 
 
 r-h 
 
 3* 
 n> 
 i 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 rD 
 
 
 * * 
 
 
 
 
 _^ * f-\ 
 
 }T^ 
 
 rD 
 
 
 fe|H^ 
 
 
 P- 
 
 
 n> 
 
 cr 
 
 r-f 
 
 
 c w 
 
 3 
 
 cr 
 
 
 ^5n 
 
 
 
 
 P* 
 
 rD 
 
 O 
 
 
 -t- 1 
 
 OQ