The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1898-06-03
COMMISSIONERS REPORT
The State Railway Commis-
sion Briefly Reviews
It's Work..
SHREWD AND EFFECTIVE WORK
No Room for Criticism.--An
Ultimate Victory for the
People.-A Good Record.


The South Dakota railway commits
SIGN feels somewhat indignant over
the false and %unwarranted criticisms
made upon it by the state republican
organ, the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader,
at the instance Of A. B. KittHedge, at
torney for the Milwaukee railway and
chairman of the republican state CEN
trial committee. That the people may
know the facts in the matter the rail
way commissioners have prepared the
following concise statement for publ
cation:
"When we adopted the schedule of
reasonable freight rates eight of the
railroads in this state instituted in
junction suits against us. 1t was ap-
parent f, ON the first that the case of
G. M. & St. p. railway was the leading
case and the one to be singled W. for a
test case. 1t had the largest mileage
in the state and showed the largest
net earnings per mile of any Of the
roads, We also found that the funds
provided for litigation with the rail
ways would be insufficient to defray
the expense of more than one case.
We therefore decided at the outset to
single out the G. NJ. & St. P. case and
try it separately from all tie rest, and
so Instructed our attorneys. The roa Is
were all opposed to a separation of the
cases and have tried all manner of
means to force the fighting in all the
cases simultaneously SO as to present
the list as n case, thereby hoping to
score some such victory as was scored
in Nebraska. The supreme court in
the Nebraska cases considered all the
cases together and while it found some
of the roads had a surplus from earn
ings after paying expenses and taxes,
yet many of item did not, and for this
reason granted the Injunction against
all.
"The first move made by the board
was in filing the answers. When the
suits were begun we had our option Ell
ther to appear in thirty days and then
f1le u answer in sixty days, or we
could file our answers in the first th;r-
ty days. We filed u answer in the
G.. M. & ST.. p. case during the first
thirty days and held our answers in
the other cases until sixty days. This
singled out the St. Paul case and put
it thirty days ahead of all the rest and
the trial has proceeded in advance of
all the others. Gradually we succeed
ed in securing continuances of the 9TH
er cases and putting them over until
the next term, so that we had dispozed
OF all of the cases except the Omaha
and Great Northern. We made our
best efforts to get ~continuances of
these cases, but it could only be done
by agreement, as W. had no legal ex-
cuse for applying to the court for a
continuance, and the roads made a de-
termined stand that these two cases
should 60 along with the St. Paul case.
AS expressed by one of the attorneys
for the roads, IAN oak log will not al
ways float and it sometimes becomes
necessary to lash a pine on each side
of the oak to make it float" and there
lore they proposed to crowd in the
Great Northern and Omaha cases and
use them as Fighters to the St. Paul
case.
I'VE consulted with our attorneys
and determined to prevent this if pos
sible, and after exhausting our resour-
ces in other directions we finally de-
cided to confess the complaints of the
Great Northern and Omaha and thus
put them completely out of the way.
We have secured what w started out
to secure-a trial of the St. Paul case
single handed and alone.
80 far as the St. Paul case is con-
cerned, the admission in the other
cases will cut no figure, as they simply
admit that the roads may have been
wrongly classified. There are no facts
no figures, no data mentioned in the
amended answers, and the only way
the St. Paul company could get any
benefit ~ of these confessions would
be to prove the condition Of the Omaha
and then prove that the St. Paul rail
way condition vas the same, because if
the roads are differently situated an
utifedSoudole rdCe lOF one uiSuI W q
reasonable rate for the other. On the
other hand, if we had simply with
drawn our answer and let the cases go
by default the court would not have
granted %injunctions by default, but
would have required testimony to sup
port the claims of the roads. This
would have put the facts, figures ard
situation of these roads befor the court