A BILL RELATING TO BILLS OF LADING IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN AND S. 957 A BILL RELATING TO BILLS OF LADING PART VII Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate Commerce WASHINGTON BILLS OF LADING. LETTERS FROM HORACE TURNER, MOBILE, ALA., REPRESENTING HORACE TURNER & CO., EXPORT LUMBER, PRESIDENT TURNER-HARTWELL DOCKS CO. Senator MOSES E. CLAPP, MOBILE, ALA., June 3, 1912. Chairman Committee on Interstate Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: On May 18 three officials of the Mobile & Ohio and Southern roads, Mr. S. R. Prince, general counsel Mobile & Ohio; Mr. Alfred P. Thom, general counsel Southern Railway; and Mr. Lincoln Green, freight traffic manager Southern Railway, appeared before your committee for the purpose of attacking the testimony given by me to your committee under date of April 26. I ask, in justice to myself, that I be given an opportunity to reply, and I am sending you herewith a written reply, earnestly requesting that my reply be read before your committee and then be printed in your hearings, in order to give same the publicity that has been given the statements of the three railroad officials named above. Practically the same statements made by these officials before your committee were also made before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals, excepting that they go a little further before your committee. I refer first to the statement of Mr. Green that the Chamber of Commerce of Mobile lent its name to Mr. Turner's suit; that Mr. Turner is the only one that has made any appearance at all in the handling of this suit. This is so untrue and so ridiculous that no sensible man would have uttered such a statement if he had the slightest knowledge of the true situation. I have given a true history of this complaint and hearing before the commission in the written statement which I inclose, and this can be verified by application to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. Green's statement is indeed flattering to me, and it is too bad his statement is not true, for it would indeed be pleasing to think that I possessed such a charming personality that the United States district attorney at Mobile, a most busy man, enjoying not only a Federal practice but having a large private practice in addition, would drop his work and give his time for weeks and months—traveling to Washington time and again, and to Chicago-without charge, on my private account; and that Mr. Luther M. Walter, formerly an attorney for the Interstate Commerce Commission, enjoying a large private practice in Chicago, should, before he has ever seen me, give his time and talent, free of charge, to further my private interests; and lastly that the Chamber of Commerce of Mobile, whose directorate was composed of bankers, law 369 yers, and businessmen of prominence, should vote to turn over the name of the chamber of commerce to my private interests. I would refer also to the reference made by Mr. Thom to the fact that a community like ours is not able to grasp a transportation problem like the present one in its entirety and in its broadness. Possibly the gentleman is right, but it is a great satisfaction to a community like ours-without "grasp" and "broadness"-to know that the Interstate Commerce Commission agrees with us, and that the many favorable editorial comments of the large journals, published since this decision was made known, stamps these editors also as men without the "broadness" necessary to "grasp " a transportation problem. There is reference to political influences which the railroads can not possess. Now, everyone who has resided in our community knows that one of these very railroads, through its officials, has pretty nearly controlled our politics in the past. Up to a year ago, when we commenced working under the commission-government plan, these railroad officials took part in every election, no matter how small; they spoke regularly and loudly at our political gatherings (generally with the so-called ring), and it has only been a few weeks ago that the present head of one of these very railroads-Mobile & Ohio-together with his general counsel, left no stone unturned to land himself as a delegate to the Baltimore Democratic convention. They failed through no fault of theirs, but because the people at last see things in a different light. If your committee wishes any further information from me, I will be glad to furnish same in writing or appear in person, and I certainly trust that your committee in the near future will throw such protection around water terminals by separating the road from the terminal expense, as is the case with cotton traffic, by compelling a separate accounting of all water terminals, to prevent jugglery of charges, and by compelling the issuance of through bills of lading to all shippers and ocean carriers alike, under reasonable regulations-as will leave the ocean free to all competition. Yours, respectfully, HORACE TURNER. I inclose also copy of Interstate Commerce Commission decision No. 4242, one of the most important decisions ever printed, bearing directly on water transportation. To the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce: I have before me a copy of the testimony of Mr. Lincoln Green, freight traffic manager of the Southern Railway, before your committee, Saturday, May 18, and as this testimony was given for the purpose of discrediting my testimony before your committee, and as Mr. Green has not stated the facts correctly, I ask in simple justice to myself that you permit me to answer Mr. Green and give my answer the same publicity that was given his testimony. I will take up Mr. Green's testimony under heads, replying to what appears to me the principal points in issue. Exclusive contracts. Mr. Green states that exclusive contracts, through bills of lading, wharves, and guarantees of cargo are abso lutely necessary to induce regular lines to Mobile, without which exclusive contracts regular lines would cease coming not only to Mobile but to ports on the South Atlantic as well. That exclusive contracts are not necessary is clearly demonstrated by the experience at Galveston and New Orleans, where these contracts do not exist. To further show the absurdity of Mr. Green's statement, I call attention to the recent decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission (I. C. C. No. 4242) against the Mobile & Ohio and Southern roads-that the railroads must make their wharf terminals public, giving all shippers access to them by the boats shippers choose to employ or by making delivery at other available docks at same rate; also that the railroads must issue through bills of lading to all water lines alike under the exact same reasonable regulations. Certainly the Interstate Commerce Commission, after a thorough investigation, would not have declared these exclusive contracts illegal and stated that "they (railroads) have, to an extent at least, pursued a policy which results in diverting such exports as can not be handled under present conditions at Mobile to ports where docks controlled by them or their allies could handle this traffic." Mobile at last is an "open port" under which system Galveston, which has always been an open port, has progressed so favorably. There is an intimation in the record that New Orleans was a closed port until last season; this is not a fact. Several railroads-the Illinois Central, Southern, and its allies-would not issue through bills of lading out of New Orleans to Liverpool except via the Leyland-Harrison Line. New Orleans was an "open port" and through bills of lading were given to every shipper and steamship line via every other European port. The public at New Orleans complained so bitterly that these railroads receded from their position even as to Liverpool and not even this former stronghold of monopoly for the Leyland-Harrison Line exists. In the recent hearing (I. C. C., No. 4242) at Mobile representatives of two favored lines-Munson Line and LeylandHarrison Line-enjoying exclusive contracts with the Mobile & Ohio and Southern, testified that they would not leave Mobile even though these exclusive bills of lading were taken away; but, instead, they would stay here until it is definitely determined that business would not pay. The other steamship men, witnesses in this case, testified that these exclusive contracts work to the detriment of the public and of the port. Mr. Matthew Warriner, of the Elder-Dempster Line, who enjoyed an exclusive contract with the Mobile & Ohio and Southern up to September, 1910, very openly stated that when ElderDempster had their exclusive contract they had a monopoly, wanted a monopoly, and liked it; that at the time they made this exclusive contract with the Mobile & Ohio and Southern they were not looking out for the public's interest, but were looking out for the ElderDempster Line and trying to get a monopoly; that these preferential contracts are only beneficial to the steamship line that is selected for such generous treatment; that they are not beneficial to either the railroad or the public, inasmuch as they limit competition through the port and have the tendency to make rates higher; that to refuse through bills of lading to shipper in the interior by all steamship lines is a discrimination, and that the man in the country suffers: and, further, that cotton is being diverted from Mobile by the rail |