Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-09
VICTORY.
HE STATE BOARD OF RAILWAY
COMMISSIONERS
Affirm Their Decision Ordering That Like
Rates Of Freight be Given

Affirm Their Decision Ordering That Like
Rates Of Freight be Given
Wichita's Wholesale Merchants and
Manufacturers as are Accorded
Missouri River Points.
OFFICE OF BOARD OF RAILROAD CoMNIIs-
sIoNERs OF THE STATE OF KANSAS,
TOPEKA, Kan, June Z, 1889.
The City of Wichita. by the Mayor. Complainant,
The Atchison. Topeka santa Fe; Missouri Pacific;
braska and Wichita d Western Railroads, Re-
spondents.
DECISION.
On the End day of March, 1889. COMPLAINT
came to the board in due and specific form
from the city of Wichita, charging that
certain Determinations existed upon GER
tain classes of freights transported over
the lines of railroads operating to Wichita,
to the unjust prejudice of the manufac-
turing and wholesale business established
at that point. AS required by the statute
in such cases provided, the board gave
notice to the railroad companies affected
of the complaint, and appointed day for
the hearing of the same. On the day and
convened, the complaining parties and
the railroad companies complained of
beng represented before it. Upon due
consideration of the evidence adduced, the
board made its findings and decision upon
the allegations of the complaint in sub
stance and effect that the unfair and I'M
just determinations alleged existed, and
prescribing such order thereon as, in the
judgment Of the board, would effect their
abatement, which decision was promul-
gated on March %, 1889. The decision, re-
spending simply to the specific charges in
The complaint, had respect to live stock
rates from stations in Kansas to the stock
yards, and rates from manufacturing and
wholesale establishments situated at that
point. After issuing new rate sheet APP
plying a different class of live stock rates
from those formerly existing to the
stock yards of Wichita and Hutchinson,
the board was requested by the railroad
companies affected to afford re-hearing
as to the remaining part of the decision
upon the 4th of June, and this, for
reasons alleged, was granted.
Pending this re-hearing the decision in
question and the action of the board
thereon has been subjected to a species of
criticism which has evidently proceeded
from a total misconception of the scope of
that decision, and the character and extent
of the authority conferred by the statute
upon this board. To prevent the mischiefs
which might arise from mistaken con-
ception of these matters, it is deemed not
inappropriate to notice them here. 1t has
been charged that the board has by this
decision created discrimination; that it
has made class of rates in favor of
Wichita which has been denied TO other
places in the state equally entitled to the
same as Wichita. AS Wichita was the
only place that had made complaint, it
was assumed that the board could make
finding of facts and decisions upon the
Wichita complaint, in favor of To-
without notice to the railroad
companies affected, without investigation,
and without evidence. This necessarily
assumes further that either the board is
bound to take judicial knowledge of the
condition of business affected by trans
the state, the rates afforded upon
all classes, whether such rates be
open or private, and the manner in which
each class of business is affected by such
rates; iii which case it was quite super
fuous to provide by statute for public in
vestigation of these matters, or else, that
the board possesses unlimited authority and
is absolutely despotic in the methods of
its procedure.
Both assumptions are equally tallacious.
1t is a rule of universal application in all
controversies possessing a legal character, |
that the party, whether person or cor
poratiOn, accused of having wronged |
another shall be made acquainted with |
the nature of the complaint against him, I
and shall be afforded a reasonable oppor- |
tunity to answer and be heard in defence |
of the matter complained of, and any de- |
cision or Judgment made or rendered with |
out such opportunity being given, would |
be without the slightest legal efficacy or
V lue. This rule applies equally to the |
proceedings of this board.
The statute provides that upon complaint |
being made to it of the existence of I'M
just Determinations or unreasonable rates, |
notice shall be given of the same. and |
time and place appointed for hearing of |
the matter charged, and the board is re-
CURED to make its findings and decision |
upon that complaint, but it is not required |
nor authorized to rake about for causes |
foreign to that complaint, and decide those |
also against railroad companies not be-
fore it, and against whom no charge has |
been laid. 1t would thus result, If this !
species of criticism possesses any validity, |
that, if the board might not order an |
abatement of unjust discrimination at the
place complaining without abating sim
liar discrimination at all other points not |
itwould not be competent to
abate them anywhere. 1t would be quite
as consistent to impeach the judgment of
court in favor Of and against the party |
before it, on the ground of discrimina-
ton, If it failed at the same time to afford |
the like relief TO all other parties not |
before it who were suffering a !
similar wrong. The utmost that
can be claimed from it by others not par
ties TO the judgment is a rule which may
apply in all like cases. The courts are
open alike TO all and all those suffering any
grievance or wrong at the hands of an
other may present their claims for redress
and demand hearing and Judgment, but
those who neglect the means provided by
the statute for redress are in no position
to criticise the court because its judgment
has restored the dlllgent man TO his rights
1t would be strange anomaly indeed if a
court, before whom cause was pending |
should, instead of proceeding in an or
derby manner to its investigation and de- |
Clsion, call state convention TO decide the
character OF judgment to be rendered Yet,
the law has provided sub
the same general rules to gov
ern the proceedings before this board, it
has been visited with liberal denunciation
for not having pursued this fantastic
course. The same right that Wichita has
exercised exists in favor of all other par
ties TO submit by means of complaint |
any grievance within the competence of |
this board to redress, TO the operation of |
such remedial measures as the board has
been authorized TO administer. But the
board is not competent TO set aside the
statute OF the state; il is confined not only
TO the exercise of such authority or power
that has been specially conferred but also
as 10 the method and manner in which the
same shall be exercised.
In reviewing cur action under this COM
Dlaint, rendered necessary by this rehear-
ng we deem il imperative to be more ex-
llicit than would be essential for the in