chairman of the commission was put on the witness stand and stated that the division was, in his opinion, just and fair, for he had found by comparing that it fitted exactly the scale on which their tariffs were made. So that it is in evidence that my scale is in use to-day.

Q. Is it in use in any other States, so far as you know?-A. I do not know; I have had no occasion to investigate. It is used on the Southern Railway, I know. In other words, the scale that I established as the general manager of the old part of the Southern is still maintained there and probably on the Mobile and Ohio. Whether anybody else has adopted it or not I can not say. I have frequently had requests for a little diagram that I made to show it so that you could see by the lines what the relative rates would be.

Q. Will you submit one of those diagrams for us?-A. I will do it with pleasure. It simply shows the rate line as a curve. Others have also used the scale I introduced a good many years ago. The first was Mr. Henry Fink, now president of the Norfolk and Western road, when he was first on that road; but it was not then the Norfolk and Western-it was the Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio before it was reorganized. Under the law it was required that the cities of Richmond and Petersburg should have the same rates to points on our two roads, which crossed at Burkeville, 53 or 51 miles from the two cities of Richmond and Petersburg. In making tariffs to local stations beyond the question came up of the proper division for the relative hauls, and my scale was adopted as fair by Mr. Fink for the Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio. Of course I thought that if it was a proper scale at all it would be fair for the division of rates, and subsequently I got out a table of percentages known as "Talcott's Table of Percentages for Division of Rates." I have been called on by Mr. Culp, of the Southern road, and others time and again for copies of it. Mr. Fink adopted it also for the division of rates between the Shenandoah Valley and the Norfolk and Western, which I think is another indorsement of the scale as a fair one.

Q. What other basis of making the local tariffs by State commissions would be adopted usually-the proportion of mileage directly?-A. No; never directly; but the allowance for long and short hauls does not agree with my scale. Sometimes it does not differ very much from it on one class, while on another class it would be entirely different.

Q. Is the long and short haul clause enforced, or was it enforced by the State commissions within the several Southern States?-A. Generally, yes; I think. It was not enforced in Virginia. I ought to amend that. I happened to be on a road the charter of which exempted it for a long time during my management from any State interference with the rates. There was only one condition upon which the State could interfere, and that was that we should not pay more than 15 per cent in dividends; but as they had kindly increased the capital stock we had no show of paying 15 per cent dividends, and we did not come under that law at all. Although I did not study very closely the requirement of the law. I do not recollect any enforcement in Virginia whatever of the long and short haul provision. We adopted it in Virginia, and all our tariffs on the Richmond and Danville road were made on that basis-no more for a shorter than a longer haul. For instance, starting out I would make rates in classes on my scale from Richmond to Burkeville-about 50 miles south of Richmond, where we were crossed by the Norfolk and Western-with lower rates from Petersburg, and as the law required they should be the same to that station my rates would drop there, and with the lower rate I would just simply go back to a station nearer Richmond and carry that on. After passing this competitive point we could gradually work up to the scale again. In other words, in one class I recollect there used to be two intermediate stations that would have the same rate as Burkeville.

Q. It would not seem to you justifiable that there should be a direct drop?-A. No: not on the Richmond and Danville. There was one direct drop there; but I preferred to do away with it and reduced the rate to the stations between the competitive point and the terminal point so as to do away with it-so as to make rates equal but not have a higher rate for the shorter haul.

Q. In your judgment, then, the long and short haul clause is a proper and reasonable regulation in the making of rates?-A. Provided it does not exclude competition by forcing a reduction of rates at the intermediate points that the railroad can not submit to. For instance, I do not think it makes so much difference whether it is a water competition or a competition from any other source, if it is legitimate and proper and revenue can be made by meeting competition. On account of the highly competitive conditions at some points I do not think it is always just to forbid the meeting of that competition, even if it does make a discrimination at intermediate points.

Q. An elastic prohibition allowing for modification in intermediate cases would seem to you to be justifiable?-A. Yes; I have always thought so, and I think

so now.

Q. And does it seem to you that the evasion of this provision of the interstate commerce law through the Southern States that exists is detrimental to the interests of that section? A. I can not say without knowing more in detail where those discriminations exist and the causes for them. Of those facts I am absolutely ignorant at this time.

Q. (By Mr. FARQUHAR.) Does the practical carrying out of the long and short haul raise the long haul rate?-A. At some points, yes; at many, no.

Q. Is not what you lose in handling short haul freight-and all roads must, I presume, lose-put on to the long haul?-A. It ought not to be and never was in my knowledge on my own road.

Q. Do you say that the principle contained in the interstate commerce bill of the long and short haul is a practical principle of railroading, or is it a theoretical principle of the politicians?-A. I think it is a theoretical principle in part, but I think that there is a measure of justice at any rate in it. I took it as a measure of policy that, unless I could positively demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who are not capable of taking a demonstration always-the public-that we were not unjustly discriminating, we would better make some sacrifice of revenue than to be constantly at war with our patrons upon whom we depended, and therefore that this discrimination should be wiped out as far as possible. I mean, of course, the discrimination of the higher charge for the short haul than the longer one. I do not think it is just and reasonable to require it to be an absolutely fixed castiron rule.

Q. Is it not practically true that within the last ten years the rates on the long and the short haul, if they have been divergent from the principle announced in the bill, have really come nearer equalization than they ever did, and are all the time coming nearer equalization?-A. I must qualify my answer to that, as I do everything that relates to the time within the last ten years. I believe such to be the case, but I have not the means of demonstrating the fact at my command now. If I had known that question would come up I would have made some comparisons to show you that it is the case. I think I could have done so.

Q. Do you know a single road in the country that strictly observes the rating of the long and short haul, provision? Do you know of a single railroad in the United States since the passage of that act that has observed it?-A. I did not up to the time that I ceased to have the means of knowing what they were doing. We were, of course, called upon to defend our course. I acted for the association

to defend it before the Interstate Commerce Commission in one case. I think we were always prepared to defend it. I should say that I was called upon myself to defend the roads against the charge that it was an unjust discrimination.

Q. (By Mr. A. L. HARRIS.) Was not the provision put into the law to correct the abuse of charging so much more arbitrarily for the short hauls than for the long hauls?-A. Yes; I think it grew out of the fact that the disproportion in charge for short hauls and long was in many cases extreme.

Q. Then, was it not really a question of business and not of politics?—A. Perhaps I answered that question a little hastily. I do not know much about politics. I would like to amend that answer.

Q. (By Mr. KENNEDY.) You did not use the word politics.-A. No; it was in the question, and I answered the question generally; but I did not think about the word politics in it.

Q. (By Mr. FARQUHAR.) You would answer that it was a remedial measure so far as the disproportions had existed before the passage of the act in 1887?— A. Yes.

Q. And has been beneficial?-A. It has been beneficial; yes.

Q. If not carried out to the letter?-A. Yes.

Q. We only want to get at the facts. The other statement is so broad it might be taken up. I know some railroad men have said that no railroad can carry out the law.

The WITNESS. I think they have all tried to carry out the law. Those that were under my jurisdiction as commissioner of the Southern Railway and Steamship Association did, but they claimed they could not carry it out in every respect, and would defend themselves against the charge of failure to comply literally with the law.

Q. (By Mr. FARQUHAR.) What experience did you have in making your freight tariffs on commodity rates?-A. Originally the Southern classification was a compromise measure between all the roads in that territory, where they all had different classifications; and it was brought about by competition with the Western lines, the Green Line, as it was known, coming into that territory. In the very outset, in making that new classification, they were met with conditions in the Western business that had to be provided for. There were certain Western products that could not be put in the classes at all, that must be treated as commodities.

From time to time in our meetings to discuss the question of classification there were constantly propositions made and good reasons shown why certain things would not stand class rates. You may change this class rate as is proposed, it was argued, but there is no occasion to change the rate on this commodity. Then, as a matter of compromise, we would take it out and make a commodity rate for it. So, from having only a half dozen or so commodity rates the number increased until the alphabet was not long enough to cover them all. I see by looking at the classification sheets that others have been introduced since 10 years ago, 1890, when I was familiar with the question.

Q. Have you not about nine classes in the Southern classification now?-A. Originally there were six classes, but it takes in a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, and so on. So there is a great deal of it.

Then, when the classification was adopted, there was another thing to consider. In the limits of a State they had State classifications which were entirely different from the general classifications agreed upon, and we had to issue exception sheets. I think many of these are still in existence. Whether it is because the State commissioners have not modified their classifications to suit the general classification, or whether it is because there is some benefit to the railroads in them that they keep them, I do not know; but some of them are kept.

Q. (By Mr. RIPLEY.) Knowing, as you must, from experience, the complicated character of freight classification, does it seem to you that the power to make or to approve of such a classification might wisely be vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission?-A. Certainly not, if we were to have one uniform classification for the whole country. The conditions do not admit of that in my opinion. Q. Will you state the objections that occur to you against the promulgation of such a uniform classification for the whole country?—A. I only state it as the result of my own experience. When we adopted the original Southern classification there were some of us who were exceedingly anxious to have it based on what is known as the official classification. We preferred to use that classification, in which there were four classes. When we came to make the new classification we found it would not do; it did not fit our Southern conditions. In other words, it would put some things in the fourth class that would not stand fourth-class rates, and we had to have some lower classes. We were not thinking of making so many commodity rates at first, and it was supposed that by having a few commodity rates we could make the adjustments on them and the four classes might be enough, but I think a good many things would have to be made commodities and come out of the classes in the South if you attempted to enforce the official classification in that part of the country.

Q. (By Mr. CLARKE.) Is it not a fact that goods may be properly put into the fourth class in the region of their origin and should be advanced to first class when they reach or approach their destination?-A. I think that is proper and actually the case in some respects. Where, as in the South, they are endeavoring to encourage manufactures commodity rates are made for manufactures which would put them in a very low class; but when they strike the official classification they go right up to first class. I think that is a practical illustration of what I understand you to mean, and I think there is not any impropriety in it.

Q. Take the case of California fruits as an illustration. Fruit is abundant in California. It is at certain times the principal article of freight. It may belong in a low classification properly, but when it gets farther east it becomes a rarer commodity, and there are certain reasons incident to its perishable nature which also have a bearing, and the price of it becomes higher when it gets nearer the places of distribution because there is smaller competition, etc. Would it not seem, therefore, that unless there can be some uniform system of transfer from one classification to another, that it is absolutely impossible to have a uniform classification and do justice to the different sections:-A. I think so. I think also that would be illustrated by a comparison of the classifications of the different States. The Florida railroad commission, naturally looking after their product down there, would put Florida oranges in a lower classification than they do in Virginia, where they do not raise them. Though I have never made the comparison, I am sure you would find that fully illustrated in the State classifications. Q. (By Mr. A. L. HARRIS.) Is the country now divided into divisions for classification?-A. No; except so far as between the Official covering the Northern lines and the trunk lines and those roads that take the trunk-line classification, as, for instance, the Norfolk and Western and the Chesapeake and Ohio coming into the South. They are essentially Western lines; they take the trunk-line classification, and the others take for their business what is known as the Southern classification. Q. You have a division known as the Southern division?-A. The Southern division; yes.

Q. And one known as the Western?—A. I do not know anything about that;