The Topeka state journal., 1897-06-10
Railroad Commissioner Camp
bell Produces Testimony
Showing That Reduction of
Rates Helps Producers.
Arguments and Figures to ProveThat
President Ripley's Position is
Untenable.

Mr.. Ripley said to a Journal reporter:
1T has been demonstrated to the sat
isfactiOn of the most radical exponents
of lower rates that decreases in rates
work injuries to the producers"
That statement by the head of the
Santa Fe is the thorn in the flesh of
the POpulist rate men. All declare that
President Ripley does not know what
he is talking about, but the president
thinks he does and stands ready at all
times to demonstrate his theory. Mr..
Campbell, the original maximum rater,
the man who prepared the first max
imum bill or severe anti-railrOad meas
ure Which appeared in the legislature
after the birth of Populism, takes the
most vigorous exceptions to the ideas
of the Santa Fe president.
4 think" said Mr.. Campbell, that is
one of the most remarkable statements
1 ever heard coming from an intelligent
man. | can hardly understand how
a man of Mr.. Ripley's prominence can
make such statement to an intelli-
gent people. He practically says that
all the efforts made by the different
states in the Union 10 curb or check the
rapacity of railroad corporations in
their exOrbitant charges were not only
foolishness, but injurious to the people
sought to be protected. He says that
a reduction of rates works injury to
the prOducer; or, in other words, if the
people in this state could have rates
on grain reduced One-haIf, that it
would be disastrous to them to that
amount. I suppose, upon this theory,
that if the rates were reduced three
fOurths it would absolutely bankrupt
them Does any man of common sense
believe this theory?
Now, let US illustrate it. Suppose
we lived on turnpike with a toll gate
at the end of every mile, which charged
team and wagon 5 cents at each gate,
making the total charge for drive of
20 miles 81. A farmer, hauling his pro-
duce over this road to a local grain
center, would thus pay 81 going to
market and 81 returning, making 50 toll
on every load of grain hauled to that
market Then, suppose that half of
said toll gates were removed, would
he not then have saved 81 on each load
hauled to that market? Now are not
freight charges a toll, a tax levied upon
the freight to all intents and purposes, /
just as much as q, toll upon a turn
pike? If this be true, how possibly
could a reduction of rates hurt the pro-
ducer of Kansas? The prices of pro-
ducts are generally supposed to be gov
erned by the law of supply and de-
mand. Liverpool, England, is the
worlds central market for wheat, and
practically fixes the export price of
wheat within five miles of the wharves !
on the coast line of California. He
hauls that wheat directly from his farm
to the elevators at the ship landing;
then he pays 2 cents for elevator
charges, 2 cents for commission and
cents for ocean freight, thus getting
within cents, transportation charges,
OF the Liverpool market for his wheat.
Now, a man in Harvey county, Kan
sas, raises wheat. He pays 10 cents
per bushel to get it to Galveston, 2
cents elevator charges, 2 cents commits !
sion and cents ocean freight, paying
in all q cents to get his grain to Liv-
erpOOl. or, in other words, 19 cents
more than the producer in California.
Now, suppose we get a reduction in
freight rates to Galveston, SO as to
make the rate 9 cents instead Of 10 cents |
per bushel, would he not receive 10 !
cents more for his wheat?
Another illustration: A man raises |
corn within five miles of the elevator ar
Kansas City, Mo. He hauls his corn in
wagons to the elevator, and gets the !
full market price, whatever that may |
be. A man in Stafford county, Kansas, |
five miles from the station, produces
corn and hauls it to the station, same |
as the producer in Kansas City, and I
pays cents per buShel freight from |
Stafford to Kansas City. Is there any
man on earth, a railroad magnate, per |
hapS, excepted, who would reason that |
the producer in the vicinity of Kansas |
City does not receive cents per bushel |
more for his corn than his Stafford |
county neighbOr? Suppose, again, he |
could get a reduction of 4 cents per |
bushel, who doubts that he would re- |
ceive ( cents more for his corn? I knew |
a man who lived in Stafford county, I
Kansas, who shipped a car load of corn |
to St. Louis, Mo, in the year 1889 Corn /
took all his corn to- pay the freight. Do !
you think il that man could have got !
his corn shipped for the nominal sum 1
of, say cents per bushel, it would have |
him?
But let US lay theory aside for few
and talk facts. About the lat |
ter part of April 1897, sent out let |
ters to a numebr of grain dealers over
the state, and among other questions |
asked them was the following: What |
effect did reductions in freight rates |
a T0rin T0raf6 11ea
producer? Or, in other words, how |
much more did the producer get out of !
his grain by that reduction in rates? |
received answers from most of the
parties, and will give synopsis of a |
few of the answers received to that par !
ticular question:
Anthony, Kan, May 8. '97.
Reduced rates last year enabled US to |
pay the farmer about cents more than |
before the reduction.
J. T. RICHMOND.
Stockton, Kan, April 27, '97.
Reduction in rates last summer in |
creased the price paid the producer |
about cents per bushe1.
o. A. HIGGINS.
Lincoln, Kan, April %, '97.
Reduced rates last year advanced corn |
nearly 4 cents per busheI
HARLEY & JACKSON. |
Wichita, Kan. April 26. '97.
Reduced rates last year equaled |
cents per bushel.
HALL & ROBINSON.
OOuliCAA NTlONes nan, April 70, ~
Reduction in rates last summer re- |
suited in the farmer receiving about /
cents per buShel more.
FRANK LOWRY & co.
Phillipsburg, Kan, April IS, 81.
Reduced rates last fall enabled US to /
pay to cents more per bushel.
A w ROBERTSON
Wellington, Kan. April 26. '97
Reduction in rates enabled US to pay
31z cents more per busheL
WILLIS K. FOLKS.
SUIT AGAINST WICHITA co.
State Will Attempt to Collect on