Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1886-06-26
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF RAIL
WAY COMMISSIONERS

On Several Complaints Against the Dis
examinations NJ ade 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
they were charged for $50 pounds, when
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
I planned of. the facts appear 10 be rs follows
] On the 18th of April, 1856, there was con
I signed to compliments at Harper carload
Z of corn, to be shipped TO them at Medicine
/ Lodge, Kan, over the Southern Kansas rail-
] road. The cOuslgneE weighed the corn be-
! fore putting the same into the car, and his
I sworn statement shows that the total weight
I was -, So pounds. In the WaybIl 1t is de
] scrlbed as '.1o5 sacks of corn; weight, subject
/ 10 correction 2JOUJ pounds" When
/ the corn reached its destination
I complainant was charged the regular rate
| for the distance between Harper and Medi-
cine Lodge upon q stated weight of 10000
pounds.
/ In his response to this complaint Mr.. S. B.
J Hynes, the company's general freight agent
I says: Our instructions TO agents are when
/ billing grain, TO use weight OF $4,000
] pounds, which Is to be corrected to actual
| weight when such Is ascertained. 1t was
[ formerly our custom to bill all cars at 25,OO0
pounds, but since the capacity of cars have
weight Is oJ5UOO pounds" The writer adds:
/ III you desire, We viii put the complaint in
the form OF claim and adjust direct with
/ shippers as soon as possible"
8 ais.
/ practice founded upon it, were free from
/ objections, the offer to adjust the
! OVer-clargs ia this wise would ObTiate any
need OF further comment. But We think
I that the custom OF charging shippers upon
maximum car load weights, leaving the ship
I per to seek adjustment with the company
afterwards upon actual weights, is so Objec
uOuable as to merit all the condemnation
and obJurgatlon heaped upon 1t by the in
| dignaut shippers in this case. Here is a
/ party whom upon a shipment of a load of
corn thlrty-thlee miles IS OVercharged, aC-
eOrdlug 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
I plain and go to the trouble and expense of
| getting back from the company that portion
I OF his money that was unlaW-
/ fully eZacted. As the complainant
| justly observes many men whose over
charge is a comparative trihe, Will grin and
/ bear II, take their pay out in cursing the
| company rather than be VgLed with seeking
] to recover their money.
1t is the duty of the company to know, at
l the time it presents freight bill to a man.
/ the correct amount 1t has a 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
] aECertasueQ as we'll before as after and fire.
quently much more easily it must be
I evident that such a practice as the one pur-
sued IN tins case must be fruitful source Of
| overcharg6 20 shippers, entalling absolute
] loss TO some and VeEatiOus trouble and eL-
/ pense to Others, who resort to the tedious
: ana usually dilatory methods devised for the
/ establishment Of claims through rLIlrOad
/ offices.
It is true that the company had no track
/ scales between the two points of shipment,
/ but tins is no excuse. 1t was not the Ouuy of
\ the shipper to furnish the scales, and their
I absence can never justify any company
| n.basIng charges for service rendered,
which the laws requires shall be upon estab
] llshed and uniform rates, upon its own ar
/ bitrary guess or presumption, and establish
/ tire 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-
| tOre Us, and We find thaUiU fails in that re-
] spect to conform to the requirements OF the
/ law as stated by US to the general manager
l of the AtchisOn road in letter of date April
| ID, last. The date of this bill is April 18th,
I last We are OF the opinion that the over
| charge in this case should be refunded to
the shipper without delay, and that the
Z OBJ eCuOnable custom set forth IN Mr..
] Hyne's letter should be at once abolished
aud further, that the expense bills Of the
! -outhern Kansas railway should be made to
conform to the requirements heretofore
pointed out by the board.
REBATES.
In answer to a letter recently received
from one A. b. Corning, inquiring for infOr-
. zion MHrH
bates, the commissioners respond as fol
lows;
TOPEKA, KAN, June II, 1886.
4. b. Corning, Esq:
DEAR SLR:-ln answer to your inquiry ad-
dressed TO this Office of May % to the effect
that, if, under existing laws, a 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 10 the same point, and in such
| case could not those who had been charged
and had paid regular rates recover from the
l railroad company the like rebate during the
/ time such contract had been in force, We
I have to inform you that the statement sub
mitted in your inquiry does not embrace all
I the conditions that require uniformity of
charges. If the shipments were all made
I from the same place to the common point to
/ all individuals and firms alike they would
/ all be entitled to the ike rebates granted to
one on the same class of freight.
The statutes Of this state prohibit railroad
companies from charging or receiving from
any person. company or corporation for the
/ transportation Of any property or for any
other service greater charge than 1t shall
\ at the same time charge demand or receive
from any other person, company or cor
/ pOratiOn for like service for the
same place, or upon like condition under
T similar circumstances. And it further pro-
I Vlde5 tlat all concessions OF rates, draw
| backs, and contracts for special rates shall
I be open 20, and allowed all persons, com
Dauies and operations alike. These EtHtu-
I tory provisions created no new rights in IA
VOr OF shippers, nor imposed additional du-
I ties on carriers They have always been in
D law since railroads commenced to be opera
I ted. If it were otherwise il would result
that the state, whose primary duties was
I that Of protection to all Its citizens, had, by
granting charter Of incorporation to AN
| association of individuals to form a railroad
! company conferred the power on such assO-
citation to pull down and destroy one class
I of citizens and build up another, or IN other
words bad commissioned an association of
individuals TO defeat the very end for which
the state was created and exists. But the
statute has added three further sanctions
carriers, and the cO-reiatiFe rights of ship
pers. that violations involving unjust dis
examinations may be visited with trebbIe
damages and heavy penalties.
Yours,
BoAED RAuHoAD COl1ussIOsERs.
AEOEHEE OvEECHARGE.
In the case of j. NJ. Johns, of Moline.
against the same company, the decision of
the board Is as follows: