Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-08-14
EXISTING STATUTES AMPLE FOR
PROTECTION OF SHIPPERS.
Mr.. TURNER REITERATES IT.
An INTERESTING LETTER TO SEN
ATOR GEORGE CAMPBELL.
Secretary Of the PopuIist Railroad
Board of Kansas Gives the Max
imum Freight and Special
session Crowd Another
severe jolt.


time azo The journal printed an interview
Will r W. Turner. secretary Of the board
-nf railroad commissioners. which knocked
the wind out Of the contention Of the Popu-
list statesmen thar the board had no
power under the present law to enforce an
order reducing freight rates. and that
Wherefore the legislature should pass a
r. xlmum freight rate law. State Sena-
r1- George campbell. Of Lahftte county.
hscaue somewhat excited over the matter.
IL is a rank maximum freight rater. and
Turner'S talk did rot suit him So he
vrcre Turner a letter demanding an eX-
PLANTATION as to why the interview was
given aud what he meant 10y attempting
- overthrow Populist doctrine.
Secretary Turner replied in a lengthy
l-'rfr. which reached the public to-day.
After acknowledging receipt Of Campbelfs
l-tser the secretary starts ont: II have
- say that the interview in The Kansas
s1tv Journal speaks for itself. and | have
not . single sentence to retract-' Then
the secretary encIoses a copy OF the IN
tslview ss published. In it Turner held
that the present law gave the railroad
hoard power TO fix rates, providing COM
plants were properly made. He stated
tlat in nearly every instance those COM
planning went about IL in the wrong way.
lFs noirted out Just how it could be done
order He took a shot at Taxpayer,
Heavy Shipper" "Overcharged' and the
like for writing anonymous letters con-
dsmning the board when, in fact. they
either had never made complaint. or had
made one IN the wrong way. His inter-
view further cited the law and decisions TO
sustain the position he had taken.
After quoting the interview in full, the
secretary proceeded:
If Il were intended by the legislature
that passed the law that the commission
ers could modify or change the rates upon
complaint OF a single individual only, II
was unnecessary to provide the method OF
procedure laid down in section IS In fact,
a. the time the law was passed il was ar
Rued that il the power to change or mod
ify rates in such way as to require the
s0rnpauy's acceptance of them is TO be in
volved through the medium Of a complaint, |
that II would seem to he proper and just
and in consonance with the general spirit |
q our jurisprudence to provide that the |
complaint should emanate either from the |
concurrent action OF number of qualified |
electors OF a responsible public body such |
a the mayor and council or trustee.
1T was this view OF the law which caus- |
I'd me TO submit to the interview about |
which YOU write. believing that the articles |
that appear In the public press discussing |
the rate question were written in ma |
nlrlTA OF cases Dl DFlsNNS NHo Ntl6 tx
Furant Of the provisions of the present law |
ard the procedure necessary to make it |
operative
Under sections a and Is complaints have |
heretofore been made 20 the board in |
large number Of Instances, and in each |
case the findings of the board upon the |
questions involved have been accepted by |
the railroad companies. when the COM |
Tsiafnts were properly made In one in |
stance the complaints were made by petit |
ticnS circulated iudiscriminately without |
regard to the statutory provisions as 10 |
mayors aud councils, or trustees of town |
ships The railroads appeared upon the |
hearing Of these complaints and questioned |
the jurisdiction Of the commission TO pro |
cee6. The objection was overruled. and |
the commission proceeded to establish rates |
which tse companies refused TO observe, |
holding that the question of jurisdiction /
vss material one; and I think that un-
doubtedly they were right, for the reason /
that no power is given to the commission |
except iu the manner provided by the stat
ute and the modus operandi of using that |
power must be followed in the way in
which the statute provides. In this one 4
Instance o. was not. The first case brought /
Co. the attention OF the board under sec
1l0uS Is and Is came rom Beloit. ana al
fsrted the Missouri Pacific, Central Branch
aud the Union Pacific roads, and after re
reated DELAYS ana extensive investigation,
decision was made 10y the commissioners
reducing the rffes of the roads 10 per cent
Tho decision was accepted y the rail-
road companies and pu- in oper axiom.
-THaseafrrr complaints were mad by the
fuavor auG councils OF the cities of Usage.
Newton and Great Bend against the Santa
l-.. fgr eN,rssiv" ana eXtortioaate charges /
aud uu1a s hearing and investigation the
Tsf.- ot tHs. company were reduced on an 4
rfrssf