The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-01-09
RECEIVED WITH JOY
EVERYBODY DELIGHTED WITH THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Wichita's Commercial! Future il Now
Assured Beyond Any Doubtful
Text of the Decision With an
Interesting Historical Re-
view of the Case.

| everyb body, and the demand for the EAGLES
that contained it was nearly as great as
! the demand for the paper was the day
after the opening of the Cherokee strip.
| 1t not only interested the wholesale and
| retail merchants, but it even interested
the newsboys aud bootblacks, for it does
| net require very keen minds to see that
| with freight rates such as the decision
| insures, Wichita is bound to become the
great commercial center of the southwest
1t WAS the theme of conversation at the
postoffice and in the hotels and news stores
all day Sunday. and not few dlgnified
business men became hilarious in con-
graduating one another over the result of
the fight.
The following. by the supreme court, is
a history OF the case, as well as the good
reasons why the Injunction was dissolved:
The Judgment of the district court Of
Atchison county in this case was reversed
by the court and the injunction issued
against the railroad commissioners dis
solved.
This suit was brought in June, 1892 by
the Symns Grocer company of AtchisOn
| which sued for itself, and others similarly
situated, to eDjoin the state board of rail-
! road commissioners and six railroad COM
panies from putting into effect an order of
the board made March s. 1892, changing
the rates heretofore established on sugar,
| coffee, beans and canned goods from Mis-
souri, river points to Hutchinson, Salina,
Wichita and Arkansas City in Car load
lots. The case was brought in the district
| court of Atchison county
The Symns company claimed that here
tofore there had been maintained relative
ly reasonable and just rates between Car
l..xl 49,, t.r, rtrn{ late Of I.n
commodities named, under which it was
imma:erial whether goods were shipped in
carload lots or less: on the belief that no
discrimination would ever be made by the
board. jobbing houses were established all
over Kansas; that Instead of this the COM
missioners on March 5, 1892, made an or
der reducing the rates on sugar in carload
lots from Atchson and other jobbing
points in eastern Kansas to 10 cents per
hundred pounds and making the rate on
canned goods. coffee and beans, III carload
lots, % cents to SaliDa; p cents to Hutch
inson aud Wichita, and % cents to Arkan-
sas City; whereas the rate Oh less than
carload lots was permitted to remain at "a
cents per hundred pounds to Salina; 81
and 40 cents to Arkansas City.
That the reasonable difference be-
tween car load rates and less than car
load rates should not exceed cents per
hundred pounds and that the rate estab.
lished was discriminating, and would in
lure and destroy the business that had
been built up by the plaintiff 1t was
further avered that the making of the
order was a covert and unlawful attack
upon the rights of the plaintiff under the
Interstate commerce laws of the United
States.
The answer filed by the board of railroad
commissioners recited the facts which
led up to the order complained Of, and al.
legged further that the rates established
were reasonable aud just, and stated fur
Their that they stood ready to hear, con-
slider and determine any matter of freight
rates at any times. The Rock Island an
swered that the rates were unjust and un-
reasonable and further that they would not
afford the railroad company just COM
pensation. The NJ, K. and I. and the Union
Pacific's answers were substantially the
same; so was that of the Missouri Pacific
which contained the further averment
that the commodities named in the order
were produced outside OF Kansas and were
the subject of interstate commerce. The
Santa Ee disclaimed any interest in the
controversy except to learn what was re-
qnired of it by law, and alleging that the
Interior jobDers in the state upon whose
complaint the order was issued, were in
terested and should be made parties to the
cause. The interior jobbers did interfere
and their answer alleged that the
rates established were just aud reasonable
and not di-crI inmate.
Judge Robert NJ. Eaton issued an in
junction. A motion to dissolve the in
junction on the grounds that the plain
tiff's petition did not state facts sufficient
to constitute a canse of action aud that
the court had no jurisdiction, was,
after a hearing of eight days, overruled.
Judge Eaton held chat as the four articles
i'll tae controversy are not produced in the
state, and the profit on them was small
aud the retail merchant will buy them
where he buy, his other goods, it follows
that unless the wholesale dealer can sell
these articles his trade in other commod-
tiles will fall off. The railroad commits
sioners, he held, had no right to interfere
with or to make rate which in auy way
effects au interstate rate on such products
The supreme court holds that much
discretion is necessarily Invested in the
state board in determining what are
reasonable and just rates, and that so
long as it acts within the limits of that
discretion Its acts cannot be enJoined or
interrupted. The courts cannot trench
upon its jurisdiction, nor exercise the dis
cretion and power vested III 1t. Mem j
bers of that tribunal are presumed to
have been chosen with reference to heir
Judgment and fitness, and it is presumed
that by special study and experience they !
will become Qualtfled 10 master the details !
and intricacirS of rates and tariffs.
Much of the Information respecting
trans portafion Is under the control OF the /.
railroad companies aud not accessible to the /
patron of the road, and hence /
the commissioners are Created with the .
right To inquire, classify aud decide Al /
though not clothed with all the functions |
of a court, they are authorized TO deter (
mine what are just and reasonable rates. /
In a certain sense they stand as guardians
Of the public, for the protection OF |
Is binding and conclusive,
unless the railroad companies can show
that their findings and decisions are IN
Just and unreasonable. 1t can hardly be
that the decision of Il board so constituted.
W hich is applicable to the entire state can
be stayed or set aside at the suit OF an
Individual for whom no service has Yet
been performed. aud who may or may not
bring himself Within the operation OF the
decision. II, in such a case, for any cause |
an action would lie IL should be brought
in the name of the state on the relation OF
some public officer. IL one shipper may
maintain the action, another shipper may
likewise maintain the action, and III this
way there might result a conflict in the
various courts The district court N one
county might fDd the rate reasonable, |
" hile the district court IN another county
might find IL unreasonable. One court |
mi Int en- join the enforcement of the order,
and another decide that t should be put !
n operation.
Ii may tse said that the rates upon
smaller quantities than car load lots
should be reduced, and it may be tha. the
disparity between the TWO classiiications is
80 great is 10 result 10 the detrinent OF
some OF the shippers. IL this be the case
he plaintiff is no, without remedy. Tee
board OF railroad commissioners Is q Con-
,inuous body aud presumably open at all
lines for the REIMBURSEMENT OF rates or 10
,Drrerf any ;ue0uzfirfsS