The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-08-22
MILLERS LOSE.
Railroad Commissioners Decide
Against Differential Rate.
Take Ground That 1t Would Be
discrimination
OPINION is LENGTHY.
Attempt to Show That Existing
Rates Are just.
Examples Given to Prove That
OPINION is LENGTHY.
Examples Given to Prove That
Demands Are Wrong.

ton of the five, cent differential rate on
wheat in the decision handed down by
the state board of railroad commission
ers, this morning. The millers lost
their suit, instituted before the board
in July. and the point maintained in
the decision is that Topeka's millers
asked special privileges against the
spirit of the new railroad law.
The board labored far into the night,
last evening. in preparing its decision
and opinion and Commissioners Walk
er, Fike and F'inney are unanimous in
their finding.
The opinion of the board is the length
of eight typewriter pages. The find
ing is contained in these paragraphs:
THE board is of the opinion that un-
der existing tariffs grain rates are fair
ly and equitably adjusted as between
the various milling centers in the state,
and that the action of the defendant,
in abolishing the five cent diferential
in favor of the Topeka millers was not
unjust; that not to have done so would
have, been a clear violation of the laws
of this state.
1t is not the spirit of the law nor
the purpose Of the courts to extond
special privileges to individuals or to
localities, and this board feels that by
granting the prayer of the complain
ants herein they would extend to them
advantages over other millers Of the
state not warranted by law
If the differential rate of five cents
should be reinstated in favor of the
Topeka millers, as sought in this con-
test 1t would enable complainants to
ship wheat to Topeka from western
points on respondents railway line at
a much less charge of freight than the
same could be shipped from other
points to intermediate points on the
same line of railway, this giving
manifestly undue advantage to said
complainants over the mills at such
intermediate points,.
In the comparative statement tabula-
ted and appended, Topeka's resultant
difrerential is shown. Some of the rates
as given are. Dighton to Great Bend,
1O1k; to Hutchinson, Il; to Newton, Is;
to EmpOria, 16; to Kansas City IT; to
Topeka, y.
Barnard to Emporia, 1919; to Kansas
City 151a; to Topeka, 101z.
Larned to Great Bend, 6; to Hutch
inson s1s; to Newton, Il; to EmpOria,
Is; to Kansas City. 16; to Topeka II.
Rush Center to Florence. 131z; to EN-
poria- 1914 to Ottawa, 16; to Garnett,
16; to Yates Center, 165z to Kansas
City. 16A to Topeka, 111z.
This board assumes that if the COM
plainants contention should be granted
as to this respondent railway, the same
rule or rate would necessarily be made
to apply to the other railroad systems
doing business in Topeka The follow
ing tables will illustrate the discrepan-
cies and Inconsistencies that would re-
suit at different points on other rail-
road lines, by the granting Of the
prayers of these complainants."
The tables here appended apply to
the other roads. Samples from the I'm
ion Pacific;
Ellis to Salina. 111k; to Enterprise,
1879; to Abilene, 1872; to junction City
14h: Manhattan, Is; Kansas City, 1672;
to Topeka. 1115.
Ellsworth to Salfna, 71z; to Enter
prise, S15: to Abilene S1a; to Junction
City TO- to Manhattan, IL; to Kansas
City 1515; to Topeka. 1O1s.
Rock Island samples.
6elden to Clay Center, 1919; to Man
haitian. 16; to Kansas City, Il; to To-
pelxa 12
Phillipsburg to Clay Center, 151k;
to Manhattan, Is; to Kansas City. Il; to
smith Center to Clay Center. IL: to
Manhattan. "A; to Kansas City. 152z to
Topeka, 10a4-
In the foregoing tables. only a few
of the various shipping and milling
points which would be affected by the
granting of the differential asked for
are given" continues the opinion, but
they are sufficient to show that an in
EQUALITY would exist at about every
n illing center in the state, and would
necessitate revision of the tar iff
schedules of TIE state which is not
warranted by the evidence in this case.
THE object sought TO be obtained by
the Omplainants in this controversy is
made manifest by the title and prayer
of their pleading TIE complaint is en-
tilted Application for restora tion of
differential rate on wheat to Topeka
and the prayer of said compla int is:
Wherefore these complainants respect
fully ask your honorable board to enter
an order directing the said railway
the same rate on wheat from western
points under which said railway com
pany operated and under which it
shipped wheat to these complainants
from western points prior to the 18th
day Of March. 1907 and the pleadings
a fiat five cent per hundred rate in
favor of Topeka
The provisions Of the railroad law
under which this board acts is most
emphatic against Determinations or
favoritism to any shipper or class of
shippers. in imposing unequal tariffs
for substantially the same service
Wherefore, this board holds that the
prayer of the complainants cannot be
granted"
Discussing the pleadings and evi-
dence adduced at the hearing. the
written opinion says.
The pleadings show the contention
on the part of the compliments to be
the reinstatement Of the five cent per
hundred pound differential in freight
rates on wheat shipments from western
Kansas points to Topeka Kas-, under
IContinued on Sixth Pase.l