Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1886-06-26

DECISIONS OF THE BOARD-OF RAIL
WAY COMMISSIONERS
On Several Complaints Against the Dis
examinations Made by the Southern Kan
sas Railway.
The board of railway commissioners last
week rendered some interesting decisions
in relation to the manner in which the
Southern Kansas railway company has of
late billed consignments from one point to
another. The first is that in the case of Rog-
ers & Son, of Medicine Lodge, who filed
complaint with the board to the effect that
in fact only 10000 pounds were shipped.
The following is the decision by the board:
From the complaint in this case and the
accompanying evidence, and the nature of
the response made by the company COM
planned Of. the facts appear to be as follows:
On the 18th of April, 1886, there was con-
signed to compliments at Harper q carload
of corn, to be shipped to them at Medicine
Lodge, Kan, over the Southern Kansas rail-
fore putting the same into the car, and his
sworn statement shows that the total weight
was q, 1852 pounds. In the waybill it is de-
scribed as ''1S9 sacks of corn; weight, subject
to correction, 10000 pounds" When
the corn reached its destination
complainant was charged the regular rate
for the distance between Harper and Medi-
cine Lodge upon stated weight of $1,000
pounds.
=. ~. - 49,. NJ q ID
Hynes, the company's general freight agent,
says: ''Our Instructors to agents are, when
billing grain, to use a weight of $1,000
pounds, which is to be corrected to actual
weight when such is ascertained. It was
formerly our custom to bill all cars at 25, 600
pounds, but since the capacity of cars have
been increased, it is found that the average
weight is $1,000 pounds" The writer adds:
"If you desire, we will put the complaint in
the form of claim, and adjust direct with
shippers as soon as possible"
If the instructions recited above, and the
practice founded upon it, were free from
objections, the offer to adjust the
over-charge in this wise would obviate any
need of further comment. But we think
that the custom of charging shippers upon
maximum car load weights, leaving the ship
per to seek adjustment with the company
afterwards upon actual weights, is 80 obiec
and objurgation heaped upon it by the in
dignant shippers in this case. Here is a
party whom upon a shipment of a load of
corn thirty-three miles is overcharged, &C.
cording to the evidence now before us, six
dollars. This is not done either by accident
or through mistake, but according to rule
and custom. The company takes the ship
per's money and leaves him to fret and COM
plain and 60 to the trouble and expense of
hon <ho %kn&
fully exacted. As the complainant
justly observes, many men whose over
charge is comparative trif1e, will grin and
bear it, take their pay out in cursing the
company rsther than be vexed with seeking
to recover their money.
It is the duty of the company to know, at
the time it presents a freight bill to a man,
the correct amount it has right to charge,
and to collect that and no more. The time
to make adjustments is before the money is
collected or demanded. The weights can be
ascertained as we'll before as after, and fire.
quently much more easily. It must be
evident that such practice as the one pur-
sued in this case must be fruitful source of
overcharge to shippers, entailing absolute
loss to some, and vexation, trouble and ex-
pense to others, who resort to the tedious
and usually dilatory methods devised for the
Offices.
It is true that the company had nc track
scales between the two points of shipment,
but this is no excuse. It was not the duty of
the shipper to furnish the scales, and their
absence can never justify any company
insbasing charges for q service rendered,
which the laws requires shall be upon estab
lished and uniform rates, upon its own ar
bitrary guess or presumption, and establish
the actual fact as best he may.
The shipper also complains that the COM
pany's agents refused to inform him, or put
upon the expense bill the rate of freight
charged. The original expense bill is be-
fore up, and we find that it fails in that re-
spect to conform to the requirements of the
law as stated by us to the general manager
of the Atchison road in letter of date April
I'd, last. The date of this bill is April 18th,
last. We are of the opinion that the over
charge in this case should be refunded to
the shipper without delay, and that the
Objectionable custom set forth in Mr..
Hyne's letter should be at once abolished
and further, that the expense bills Of the
Southern Kansas railway should be made to
conform to the requirements heretofore
pointed out by the board.
REBATES.
In answer to letter recently received
from one A. B. Corning, inquiring for infor-
nation relative tn the laws governing re-
bates, the commissioners respond as fol-
lows:
TOPEKA, KAN, June II, 1886.
A. B. Corning, Esq:
DEAR S1R:-In answer to your inquiry ad-
dressed to this Office, of May q, to the effect
that, if, under existing laws, railroad COM
pany by private agreement grants rebates to
one individual or firm, doing business at d
given point, upon all classes of freight trans
ported over such railroad for such individu-
al or firm, are not all other individuals or
firms doing business at the same point
entitled to like rebates upon the
transportation of the same class of freight
for them to the same point, and in such a
case could not those who had been charged
and had paid regular rates recover from the
railroad company the like rebate during the
time such contract had been in force, We
have to inform you that the statement sub
mitted in your inquiry does not embrace all
the conditions that require uniformity of
charges. If the shipments were all made
from the same place to the common point to
all individu ais and firms alike they would
all be entitled to the like rebates granted to