The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-01-14
WICHITA WINS AGAIN.
The State Commission Render Another
Favorable Decision

Favorable Decision
Yesterday mornings dispatches con-
tanned reference to a denial of rate asked
on double-deckers by the Union Stock
teresting in fact, as Mr. j. T. Howard, at
torney for plaintiff in the case, who fur
nished us with fun copy of the decision,
informs US. The denial was only as to
hogs. The double-deck rate for calves and
sheep still holds good. What the Union
Stock yards were seeking WAS a double
deck hog rate that would
enable the shipment of pigs and light
stock hogs unfit for slaughter. This was
denied
But at the same time a much more ;m-
portant complaint was decided favorable
TO the yards. On Aug. l, 1891, the re-
spondent companies put in an advanced
rate on live stock from nearly all points
tributary to Wichita which rate abrogated
the rates given by the commission in the
case decided March %, 1889, with a similar
or less distance. This advance was an
outrage because while it applied the same
to Kansas City it still left Kan
sas City with through or long
tariff distance just where that
city was before. In other words, it was a
square, outright and open discrimination
against Wichita, which greatly reduced
the cattle supply and crippled the Wichita
business. The briefs filed by both CON-
plainant and respondents were volumin-
Gus, embracing rate sheets from many
points within eighty miles of Wichita, and
the same distance out from Kansas City.
The decision was made on the same day OF
the ''double-deck" case, but was not pro-
muloated till Yesterday; but it is COM
plete yindication of Wichita's claim, as
will be seen by reading the decision, which
is as follows:
DECISION.
The commission finds its first duty, in
deciding this case, to relieve it from en-
barrasment incident to an attempt TO con-
found and merge the live stock rates Gov
within limited area Wichita and Kan
sas City each have terminal rates limited
TO this single commodity, live stock. 1t
will be recognized at ouce that the short
haul TO these respective market centers Can
never be made matter of common inter-
est. The territories naturally tributary to
each Is not responsive TO the other. To
make rates discrimiuative the interests af-
fected by them must be competitive, hence
the terminal rates to these widely separ-
ated points, embracing only radius
of eighty-five miles from either, have no
direct connections or effect one upon the
other. The complainants do not set up
this advance in Kansas City rates, over
the limited area it effects, as an offense, or
as an element of the discrimination and
unreasanableness complained of
The complaint Is that the advance in
the short haul rates from q territorial
radius of eighty-tve miles around Wichi-
Ia, leaving the rates from that territory to
foreign markets unchanged, affects, and as
they believe was intended to shut them
out from naturally tributary territory in
the interest of remote market at Kansas
City, or beyond. 1t re-establishes the dis
elimination against them which was
sought to be removed by relative rates eX-
listing prior to August !, 1891, under the
Wichita Decision"
Over against this the respondent COM
panies plead, in justification of the in
crease OF short haul rates into Wichita,
the advance made in rates on correspond
ing short hauls into Kansas City. That
the Kansas City increase was incident TO
the corrections of Irregularities found to
exist within the territory affected by 1t,
and the increase to Wichita logical and
necessary following in order to obey a
rule laid down by this commission.
From this conclusion the commission
Ua nI-arz MATT ar
or merit in it, as a necessity or justifca-
ton of the acts complained of. II is not
true, as argued with SO much ingenuity
and persistence. that the order of this
commission. of March 20 and June7y 1885,
putting live stock rates into Wichita, was
intended or is capable of being construed
into coupling up of these places as a
upon alike, when discrepancies were sub
sequently found or were injected
into either of them. 1t was not
that when either one of these
separate and distinct entities become sick |
that the well one must take the same
medicine prescribed for its sick mate.
The terminal rates then found in force |
Kansas City, and which had been sp-
pproved as remunerative and satisfactory
to the carrying companies by more than |
six years of continuous use, were care
fully examined and found adequate to |
meet the case and protect the live stock in |
terests of Wichlta. Hence they were put |
in force, and were continued, to the salts |
faction OF all parties, until the change |
com plained of, on Aug. l, 1891
This advance in short haul rates into |
leaving the longer haul Rates |
from the same territory to foreign mar !
ket as they were, whether intended to do |
so. SIS alleged by complainants, or not, |
works discrimination which clearly JUS |
titles the demand made for relief. The |
holds that the Wichita termi- |
nal and the outbound rates from the same /
territory are the only ones to be consid |
cred together in this case. It holds that |
the terminal rates on live stock in the two |
limited territories sought to be estab- |
iished and made dependent upon each |
other, are such separate and distinct en- /
titles AS TO forbid joint consideration by |
the respondent companies in the correc-
ton OF errors iu either, or by this commits
sion In their relation TO each other IN this |
case. In this decision, therefore, it may
be understood and accepted, that no opin-
ion is given upon the action of the respon
dents in raising the rate on limited dis
lance from Kansas City, further than to
say that it affords no justification for the
advance on like distance TO the Wichita
The commission finds and decides that
the act of the respondent COM
pantes in advancing the rate on Wichita !
i've stock traffic, as set forth
IN rate sheet, bearing date of Aug. l,
1897, works a wrong of discrimination, aud
are unreasonable IN themselves 1t is
therefore directed that the rates fixed by
h. 81