Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-07-14
AS TO FREIGHT RATES
PLAIN TALK BY president RIPLEY,
OF THE SANTA FE.
PRESENT RATES NOT TOO HIGH
AN INTERESTING COMPARISON BE-
TWEEN IOWA AND KANSAS.
Reductions Not NecPssariIy of Any
Benefit 10 the Producer-EditOriaI
Comment of Railway Age
UpOn President RiPIcy's
Statement.
PRESENT RATES NOT TOO HIGE


freight rates. prefscing It with the remark
that the reply is "as forceful and straight
forward as Mr. Ripley's arguments always
are The Age follows the letter with a
strong editorial sustaining the position
taken by Mr.. Ripley and picking TO pieces
Railroad Commissioner Campbels crit
icism Of Mr.. -Rpley's reply.
Mr.. Ripley's letter, after quoting the cir
Cular letter OF the Kansas board Of railroad
commissioners demanding a reduction of %
per cent upon the distance tariff schedule
now in force in the state: a reduction of %
per cent upon existing coal rates, and re-
duction OF . per cent upon existing rates
upon live stock is az follows:
At the recent conference at Topeka
your board. through its chairman. stated in
effect that the object OF the conference was
not to discuss the question Of whether
rates were too high. but simply TO consid-
er how much reduction. should be made
and the representatives of the railroads
were informed that the board had made up
its mind that the rates were TOO high and
that evidence TO the contrary would be
useless.
1t is submitted with all Difference that
il was the duty of the board 10 proceed
upon inquiry: 10 ascertain the facts before
making its demands; TO hear first and to
thereafter determine: but that which the
board did do was the converse of all this.
Without inquiry. without evidence and
without hearing. 81 finally decided a mat
ter that everyone will concede should have
been left open for discussion. at least.
Good Feeling Desirable.
Nothing can be more earnestly desired
by the owners and operators of Kansas
railroads. than that they should be on
good terms with the people of the state:
their interests are one and there should
IL
differences Of opinion arise, this company
will be found ready TO redress all real
grievances. and to enter into friendly con-
ferences with. the people or their repre-
sentstives. to the end that the material
resources Of the state may be developed to
the greatest degree. and that Justice be
done to all. But 10 a demand for a gen
eral reduction. made without a hearing of
any kind ! can make. in justice TO the
owners of the property entrusted TO my
care, but one answer, and feel 1t my duty
in declining TO accede 10 your demand to
briefly give some OF my reasons for SO
doing.
1t is a matter of common knowledge
that the rates now charged in Kansas are
in no case higher and in some cases lower
than the rates in the surrounding states.
In other states the conditions governing
transportation by rail are more favorable
TO the carrier than in Kansas, the popula-
tion per square mile and per mile Of road
being greater. as is also the tonnage
handled II is true that in Iowa the rates
published by the commission for roads
earning S5.OOo per mile and upward are very
low. and very unjust to the railroads, but
it fortunately happens that the business
covered by these rates is very small. So
far comparison may be relied upon as
n guide TO reasona bleness of rates Kansas
is favored. OF all states west of the Mis-
sissippi river. Iowa alone has lower rates |
but when we consider the vast difference |
in conditions. il will he seen that Kansas |
has nothing 10 complain of. even as COM |
pared with Iowa.
Kansas and Iowa Rates.
Iowa is all arabic and well settled: one /
third at least OF Kansas is arid and affords |
its railroads but little business There are |
hundreds of miles of road in Kansas which /
do not pay operating expenses. even with |
the most careful and economical manage |
ment, and hundreds more that can make !
no return TO their owners for capital in. \
vested; it is believed there is practically |
no road in Iowa which does not make some |
return to its owners.
a comparison of rates in Kansas with |
rates In Iowa having been invited. il is but /
fair that such comparison be made in the |
light OF all those conditions which make |
possible or necessary any given rate in /
4
the comparison is a fair one. If conditions /
are different and il is certain that condi-
tiOns are different IL. in one state, the rail-
roads do more business than in the 9TH
er, or If in one state the railroads must |
stand burdens which are not impOs ii in
the other.
all the lines operating in Iowa during the
year 1885 were S.250: in Kansas. S3.0S3: dur |
ing the same year the average net earnings
per mile on the Iowa lines We're 81 - din
lSS they were much higher, while in Kan
sas they were but S6S1. This showing alone |
will satisfy any fsirminded man that the !
conditions In the two states are such A 10 |
make II impossible for the same rates 10 |
lie maintained at the present time in each
state; but even IL the Kansas cOmqlni )
ald ihe same amount OF business as the |
Iowa companies. the great additional bur |
den of taxation borne by the Kansas roads
would require that the rates there should |
exceed those charged in Iowa.
Taxes in Iowa and in Kansas
During the year 1895 tse average amount
per mile paid in taxes by the Iowa roads
Vas but H2S or L Per cent on their net
amount paid per mile SEA. or 81 per
cent OF their entire net income So that |
while The Iowa roads after paving all their |
- penses and taxes. hal left 81 OS9 for each
mile OF road operated In that state for in |
tereSt on bonds or dividends on stoC5 the
Kansas roads for the same period had left
Tor like purposes but S43S per mile which |
IS the exact equivalent Of per cent of |
S'.5H- " III anyone contend that rates which !
permit earnings on an average valuation |
OF ont s''SV per mile are too high2 And |
that higher rates must be charged in a |
STATE Where 81 per cent OF the net iurofna |
IS required Tor taxes than in a state where |
Y per cent OF such income will suffice5 II
no higher rates Of taxation were harrs,l |
IN kansas than IN Iowa. the net income Of
the Kansas reads would be increased near |
~ 81, ,Oao0J.
1t is a tact Of great Significance that the
railroads OF Kansas annually return 10 fba !
People OF that state, IN the form OF taxes |
heaTiE sl-UoVy9 more than do the railroads |
ni loWa- an amount. Il IS believed thar |
more than Offsets any difference in rates. !
and submit that more people ara henedted |
nE lhe return oL this amount in the way !
1t taxes than would he the casa II il WIS |
s'GrBto 10 a part OF the people in the form |
d reductions In freight charges.
Kansas Roads TnprofitabIe
1t is not pleasant 10 publicly proclaim
.he poverty OF Kansas railroads. YET. il |
seems Necessary To this discussion In i |
4 matter oi public knowledge. not only that I
large portion Of the mileage OF the state |
hoes not pay expenses ana that another |
ically none ~ ~ earns lair return uDon |
ts cost or present value. I
"lt the railroad companies OF Kansas |
-hoUId euIer INTO agreement with the peo- |
DE ot Kansas. or with your houorabla |
'uard. 10 charge only such rates as would |
produce return Of per cent on what il |
\ Rould now cost to reproduce the railroads OF
Kansas. they would b. Obliged 10 raiss |
heir rates 10 accomplish that result
There is absolutely no margin for re-
lUctions I'm rates. No additional hussness
Guild be secured thereby. and the Railroads. |
struggling for existence under present con- |
titions- simply cannot afford to give away
more than has already been taken from !
hem. Moreover. there Is grave doubt |
y neither a reduction In grain rates | ,
would result In benefit to the Kan ,
'ss producer. II is believed that as