Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-07-14
when rates are reduced it is the consumer
and rot the producer that gets the benefit.
Reductions of Doubtful Benefit.


and rot the producer that gets the benefit.
Reductions of Doubtful Benefit.
Last summer there was a reduction in
the corn rates from Kansas. On July II.
| 1896 September corn was selling in the
| Chicago market at 2SI. cents per bushel.
| May corn was selling at 3Jz cents. per
| bUshel. on that day notice was given by
| one Of the Kansas railroads Of a reduction
| corn from Kansas to 81. Louis, which rate
| became effective the 18th of July. This
made similar reduction to Chicago. On
| July Is September corn closed at q cents
| in Chicago and May corn closed at ZS1s
cents. On July 81 September corn sold at
24ts cents and May corr was quoted at
2I& cents. On August 2G further reduc-
ton of cents per 100 pounds on the freight
rate on corn was made 10 both St. Louis
and Chicago. On August - September
corn sold IN Chicago q 2o's cents ana May
corn was quoted at 2Jss cents. On Sep
tember 10 September corn closed at 2Uis
cents and May corn Al 2s7s cents. These
figures show total reduction in the freight
cents per luA pounds. which IL equal to
6.a2 cents per buShel The decline in the
market during the same time appr0Ximated |
cents per bushel in September corn and :
cents per buShel IN May corn. showing that !
at the end Of three months war in rates |
the position OF tho Kansas corn producer |
TO the Chicago market was relatively worse |
than before the rates were reduced. In |
other words the decline I'm the Chicago |
market absorbed the entire reduction in the |
freight rate. II Is the experience Of all that /
general reductions in grain rates have been |
clines in the market price of the article
Your board asks for reductions in coal |
rates presumably TO benefit the consumer, |
and in grain rates to benefit the producer. /
alone then the sole beneficiary Of ~
duction in coal rate is the miner. We all |
know that this is not the case: The only |
result of the reductions asked for on grain
would be to further impoverisll the rail-
roads; to force the abandonment of many l
miles of road: 10 reduce the number of
EmDlOKeC and the of IhOge Teuna IN /
ing; TO make track and bridges less secure,
and the service in all respects Inferior and
ali this with little or no benefit to the pro-
ducer. II is peculiarly unfortunate, as well
as peculiarly unjust. that this demand for
made at the time when. after FIVE years |
OF adversely. the state of Kansas l. ap- |
prosperity than IL has ever before known.
Kansas Never More Prosperous.
Il am informed (and my observation con-
firms the statement that never before has
the farming community of Kansas been ]
more prosperous than at the present time. |
was held at higher prices: when debts were |
being made faster and when the volume of
paper transactions was larger. may be true.
but il is believed that there is now less
debt and more actual money in the hands |
crops failed and starvation threatened. we
hauled supplies and seed free of charge, |
and in many cases donated seed. Is II TOO
much TO hope that the railroads. which |
have all been driven to bankruptcy or dan
gerously near II. in the years of adversely. |
should now be permitted some share in the |
prosperity When our business was de-
pleted by successive crop failures We did |
not raise the rates WHY should we be ex-
pected TO bower them in the first year of !
plenty?
able board can morally or legdily sustain
your contention that raIes should be re- |
duced only upon one or both of the follow
ing hrpOtheses:
First That rates are now unreasonably
nigh in themselves
second. That the railroads are making
too much money. or. in other words are |
getting a greater return on invested capital | .
than other enterprises are receiving.
i assert the negative as to both Of these |
and stand ready to produce !
the proof upon opportunity being afforded. | ,
1t is a matter Of deep regret that find
tions of the board. but absolute confidence 1
In the justice of my contention and my i
ties entrusted TO my care. leave. me no :
Comment of the Age.
The editorial comment Of the Age is under
The head: Who Gets the Benefit of Rate g
The question of who gets the beneht
when rates are reduced is one on which |
railway men have at intervals attempted TO
10 some Elementary educational work
among legislators and newspapers repre- .
ienttng rural constituencies: but II cannot |
oe said that so far the work has produced
AS will be seen from letter published
-lStNntrH III InAS issue OF me halfway age. l..
NJ; E p. Ripley is at present engaged in | o
TO impart some instruction on J
he subject to the people of Kansas. In
he letter in question. which is addressed to | :,
he state board OF railroad commissioners. | |:
:. There IS grave doubt whether a red11c- !
ion in grain rates would result in benefit :
o the Kansas producer. II * believed that :
Is rule such reductions simply result in :,
ates are reduced II * the consumer and y
TOT the producer that gets the benefit. Z
II is the experience Of all that I
general reductions IN grain rates have / =
,eeI invariably followed by corresponding
leclines in the market price Of the article 4,
moved Your board asks for reductions in -
oal rates presuma oily TO benefit the con-
uner and I'm grain rates TO benefit the I
iroGucer. II reductions in rates benefit the
'TGducer alone, then the sole beneficiary
n reduction in coal rate is the miner
Ne all know that this is not the case.
Mr.. Ripley cites in support Of his posi- ,r
ion the experiences OF the summer Of 1S96 / =
when by successive cuts rates on corn ! j
rom Kansas points were reduced BY y ! N
cuts per 100 mounds each reduction being 1 ~
ojicved he q 5ron IN rnarLret rrics tbs | :
aggregate fall in such price being from : N
q s cents a bushel. whereby more than =
ne Chicago market and the position Of | b
he Kansas corn producer was relatively u
worse than before the rates were reduced b,
Mr. CampbeITs Interview. "
In an interview in the Topeka State n
ouruaI Railroad Commissioner Campbell. | di
{ Kansas, treats Mr.. Ripley'S argument |
nth sCorn and Coutumelv. He says that il |
the most remarkable statement I ever
card coming from an intelligent man. Mr.. | G
ampbell advances in opposition to Mr.. | A
,ipicy. two hypothetical cases, as fol- IN
,ws: NJ
i. Supposing farmer has to haul his p,
ain to market over turnpike on which :.
toll OF - a wagonload is levied. Then I ~
Gppose THAI half OF said tolls were re-
loved. would he not then have -ca-ed 81
n each load hauled to market: Are not
reight charges a toh?, f
80 A man in Stafford county. some dis
aECe from Kansas City. raises corn and
as to pay s cents bushel 10 get ii hauled |
D Kansas City. Does ne not get cents
,ss for mis- corn than the man who raises
in the immediate vicinity of Xmas j.
ity7 ST,pn0sa bs Cprlld get a reI11rri1u of | =,
cents on the rate; would he not receive II,
cents more for his Gorn2 -
1t is little diScOuraEing. at this stage ! -
the worlds enlightenment, TO find man ia
'h5 Is railroad commissioner and who / @
uEht therefore. TO b. more or less OF a CT
Pc ialist I'm rate matters. using suCh ar uT
uueuts as these Certainly Mr.. Campbell | Oh
an cali "a rate toll & ne likes. bus we II
luSt know something aDOUt the condition lea
ike. II that one farmer alone got the re-
uction Of 81 in tollS-Or II that paFticllar
lTnpike was the only one on which tolls
-ere reduced, while on many Others lead 1
lg into the same market the tolls were ID
ED up to their former l~vel-then tirat in
ividual farmer. or those farmers who
3uled over that particular pike would un-
oUhtedly be ahead 1eithcr bv the whole
or part thereof on every waganload 81.
Iuled and sold But these are not tn. con- OF
itions under which railway rates or tolls Sc
re made and Changed to-day 90