The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-01-11

interior towns, Of the through rate to the
Missouri river plus the local rate back.
II appeared in evidence before the
commission thar the local rate from
the Missouri river TO the interior
towns was not a part of the joint rate, but
was received wholly by the Kansas roads
The same practice existed with reference
TO sugar billed from New Orleans 20 the
interior towns. For example, sugar was
hauled from New Orleans to the Missouri
river, through Wichita, at the rate of 80
cents per 100 pounds, while the rate on
sugar billed to Wichita, and left at Wich-
! ita on the route TO the Missouri river, was
90 cents per 100 pounds, the Kansas road
receiving the extra 30 cents for no service
/ whatever
/ No matter If it be shown that the courts
/ have greater power than the railway COM
missioners or the railway companies more
! than the courts, the fact apparently
/ remains that the sugar trust is greater
/ than all of these. Mr. Moore in his brief
! says on this question:
The commissioners, in this case. calcu-
: lated with great care the effect which the
rates fixed by them would probably have
upon other rates which they did not as
a
broad field the evils TO be remedied They
found that Kansas roads, within the state
OF Kansas, were charging the Jobbers OF
Kansas heavy tariffs for puIely imaginary
services. When they called the railroads
to accout for it, the railroads blamed IL on
the sugar trust. IL became APP
parent that the sugar trust
and the railroads were working
together 10 the preparation Of great in
justice to the people OF Kansas. In order
10 make 10 appear that the charge for
constructive haul on sugar from the Mis-
souri, river to the interior JObbing towns
was not n purely local charge, hut was
part OF a through rate from California, "A
tariff sheet WAS prepared and issued, Civ
lug single rates Oh sugar ia carload lots 70
nearly all Of the stations IN Kan
sSs. In most cases this single rate
varied from the sum OF the
through rate TO the Missouri river
and the local rate back. But an examina-
tiou OF rate sheets disclosed the fact that
the single rate to Wichita, Sslina, Hutch
insOn. Arkansas City, and TO every point
ia Kansas where jobSing was doa<, the
single rate was exactly equal 10 the sum
OF tue through rate 10 the Missouri river
and the local rate from thence 10 the job
hing point The other rates, where the
variations occurred, included scores Of
villages containing, from fifty to few
hundred inhabitants, aud TO nos one OF the /.
towns where the single rate on sugar IN |
carload lots from California varies from /
the sum OF the through rate TO the " is
sour and the local back, Is a carload Of |
sugar ever taken in one shipment. IL was !
also disclosed By the testimony that since /
the present controversy over the sugar I
rate began tine sugar refiuerS have 1
commenced selling sugar to The Kansas /
Jobbers I. 0. b. The iotbers gay for The I
sugar delivered, including freight. 10 the |
refners. leaving the refneFs % reckon with I
the railroads, thus attempting TO deprive I
the stale OF hausAs of Jli< power to fegu-
Iaie the rates The commissioners. in 4
their decision Of Jau C5h, ls3, show that 4
they were familiar with the tact OF ftIs
close association between the sugar trust I
aid the railroads. ADD were not hood wiuk
ed by The devices Of the railroads II eScalse
state supervision, and they were justified I
"a doing what they could to cOuuisgyaIi
them.
The attorneys Tor the plaintiffs in error
say that the act Of tue commissioners was
4 legislative act aud he courts have held 4
often enough that u - not Tor them 70 &C.
quire into the motives which prompt legis-
Iayive acts Ibey deny the Jurisdiction OF
TIE court IA The matter aH1 insist on toe
right Of tbe comm lss-olsers 70 make tie
rate they did