Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1884-02-21

rcpros0zFJ your company IN conUeAu1AE
for unreasonable rates.
Pursuing this theme in the light OF
your report to us, let us see how the
matter stands, as it respects that part OF
venr system called the Kansas City, To
neks 4 Western. Tie length Of this
line. allowing double track as single, Is
70 58-I05 miles. The amount OF bonded
debt on this length of road reported TO
us is $3,372, 300. Your report further
shows that it didn't cost tins amount OF
money to build it, at least only part OF
this went into its construction and
continent. To our question, Amount
of bonds issued and during the last three
years. and on what account was the IN
crease nader You answer, So, 3tS, SOO
in mart nav ment for the capital stock OF
the Kansas City, Lawrence & Southern
Kansas Railroad Company" The mean
of this is that you have moFtgaged the
future earnings of this road to that ex-
tent to purchase stock Ia another road
for the benefit of the stock holders of
your company, every dollar Of which
will have to be paid for by the people
who do business over that line.
Your further report to US that the to-
tai cost of construction and equipment of
20 $500 miles to June 80, 1883, was
S., 1893, 253.56 or $48, I61.71 per mile.
This is what you report to us as your
actual investment, and this cost is rep
resented and covered by the bonds you
have placed on the road, lacking only
SIG, 1885. This small sum is the amount
which the stockholders of your COM
pany have had to pay, according to
your own showing, for this vast prop
erty. But you were not satisfied with
i, ~
part of your line to the amount Of 49,
100000, which represents the paltry
sum of $16,453.56. The earnings of your
road are paying the interest on that debt,
and will be taxed to pay the principal,
and also dividends on the stock; and yet
you are not satisfied. This is one of the
auxiliary lines you speak of.
So long as you build the auxiliary
lines at the expense of the people you
will probably continue to build them.
We come next to your remarks upon
local and distance tariffs; and it cannot
be out of place to remark that it Is not
very material whether we stated in our
decisions all the reasons for the differ
ence In rates of the two tariffs. We
found the two in force on your line, but
the distance tariff rates were so high
that they prevented the industrial de
for IS mile haul on wheat your dis
lance tariff rate was 90 per cent
higher than the local rate to Kansas
City, and 81 per cent. higher on haul of
200 miles. That the Kansas miller who
bought wheat for his mill had to pay you
55 and 50 per cent. more than the Kansas
City grain buyer had to pay for the same
length of haul. And if so other classes
of merchandise, and these are the ''r ca
sonable rates" with which you propose
to build up Kansas industries.
You say: "Time after time have We
shown to your Honorable Board that
over eighty per cent. of our freight tratfiy
consisted of interstate traffic passing t.
or from Kansas and other States. Time
after time have we shown to your Hon
orable Board that AtchisOn and Kansas
City practically represented two gateways
for the interstate traffic coming into ana
going from the State. Time after time
have we explained to your Honorable
Board that the foundation which had
supported us in past years in making
lower rates to and from these terminal
gateways were these three reasons:
l. By reason of the necessities Of com
petition with other lines leading from
Kansas to the East by other g2tewayE
north and south of AtChison, Laaven-
worth and Kansas City.
2. By reason of the necessity of lower
rates that our old distance tariff rates in
order to take the surplus produt is Of a
! far Western State like Kansas to market
far beyond the State.
8. Because the business done in train
and carload lots and in large volumes
! like that to and from these terminal gate
ways could be transported at less figures
Al II In, %roff So,
after including nearly twenty other fac
| tors of expense, besides switching
| empty car hauling and 'car detention /"
We recognize the validity of your rea-
| sons by adopting different rates for the
| two schedules, making the through rates
| from and to terminal points lower than
! those on the distance. We don't under
stand the point of our Ofense in this in
stance. But referring to the first para
| graph quoted above, we have to confess
! that you have been very earnest and
! persistent in your efforts to enlighten us
upon the subject of interstate traffic.
! Your efforts have not been in the least
offensive, but rather amusing. We never
had much confidence in your interstate
commerce theories as applied to Kansas
railroads. Your theory is that upon all
traffic originating in Kansas, and passing
| over the State line, ana upon all business
coming from the State line and termi-
mating in Kansas, and all that traffic that
neither originates nor terminates in Kan
sas, but passes over your line through the
State, which constitutes, as you say,
eighty per cent. of the whole traffic 81
your road, the State has nothing to do
with. That you have the power to fix
any rates you please upon all this traffic
| unYeXed by State regulation.
For the sake of the argument we may
admit that upon traffic passing over your
line to Kansas City, you might, in the
absence of other interposing obstacles
fix your own rates. But one of your
lines terminates at Atchison, and Atchi-
son is in the State of Kansas. Even your
theory admits the right of the State to fix
rates from any point on your lines in
Kansas to and from Atchison. AS you