Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1897-09-02

/
that amount, while the railroads gain
ing so much out of each shipment,
would be greatly enriched by the
thousands of dollars excess charges
they would collect daily.
.At9:i5 Mr.. Waters followed Mr.. Boyle
for the state citing laws which require
railroad companies to give notice be-
fore increasing rates and declaring that
the railroads had violated both the fed
eral and the state laws. He cited the
bill in the Debs case, which alleged that
Debs was interfering with interstate
commerce, and said that the railroads
in this case are interfering with state
commerce.
"Mr. Waggener," he said, tells us
that there is nobody interested in this
case but the stock shippers In the
Debs case there was nobody interested
but the shippers, yet in that case the
federal courts did interfere to protect
the interests of commerce as we'll as
United States mails"
Answering Mr.. Waggener's statement
that the state is not interested, Mr..
Waters said if the state should be in
different the railroads would gradually
increase other rates, encroach on the
shippers and work injustice to the citi-
zen. The railroads, he declared, adj
mitted that they were vlolaters of the
law; openly admitted it in court and
said there was no power to punish them.
The greatest defect in the railroad
commissioner law was that it did not
provide sheriff, and power to punish
for contempt. The railroad officers
ought to be punished for violating the
law like highwaymen.
KELLOGG ON TIE BOARDS POWERS.
When court met this morning L. B.
Kellogg, formerly attorney general,
now local attorney for the Missouri,
Kansas & Texas railroad, took up the
argument on behalf of the railroads
He said: 1.-TWO of the three members
of the present board of railroad COM
missioners had said to shippers that
they considered the dollars per hundred
pounds rate the most equitable rate
"This by way of testimony" asked
Attorney General Boyle.
mo sir, if we get as far out of the
law suit in this case as you did, please
correct us, replied Kellogg.
"What l want TO know" interrupted
Judge Randolph, sis whether you claim
that the state haS no power to enforce
the boards order.
Mr.. Kellogg apparently did not like
the question. He said that the present
law was so worded that there was no
authority to enforce such an order as
the board had made. HereGd section
Of the statnte, which said that when
the board was satisfied that the rates
were unjust, they should so inform the
railroads and commented: 1.-THE law
did not say that the board fix rates and
compel the railroads to live up TO them.
In this case the board had simply made
preliminary statement of opinion to
the railroads.
I. L. Davis, of Eureka, attorney for
the Cattlemen's associations of Green.
wood and adjoining counties, read sec
tions of the statutes and decisions, that
the state on the relation of the attorney
general had power to forfeit the char
tiers ofrailroads that should abuse their
rights. Consequently, he argued that
the state had power to enjoin the same
corporations from abusing their fran
chises. The state was not interested in
driving the railroads out of Kansas by
FORGETTING their charters, but was inter
ested in compelling them to obey the
laws as laid down in this case by the
railroad commissioners. In this case
rather than bring quo warranto to take
away the charters of the companies,
the state had chosen to take the milder
remedy. Surely, he argued, if the state
could apply the harsher remedy, it was
not barred from using the milder one.
A CLASH BETWEEN LAWYERS.
Davis answered Waggener's objection
that the order was only temporary, by
saying that all the orders of the board
of railroad commissioners were neces-
sarily temporary, because it was neces-
sary for the board to change the sched
ules whenever the changing conditions
aud increase of population should JUS
tify it. He understood Mr. Waggcner's
contention to be not that the board had
now power to fix any rates, but that 1t
had no power to enforce the order of
last week.
Waggcner interrupted to say that his
contention had been that the board ad-
mitted that the order was unjust. 1t
was only temporary, pending further
Investigations
nurd said the board could not by
mandatory process in court enforce its
orders,