The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-09-26
KANSAS MILLERS
SUE FOR RIGHTS
lcontlnued from First Page..

Texas millers also come 10 Oklahoma
| City. he stated, and bought wheat at a
higher price than the local markets
should be. and this threw them cut OF
line with other markets and would not
allow competition IN the open four
markets
| Mr. Shubert was recalled and stated
/ that the Rock Island rate from Wichita
| 10 Fzt Worth. Texas, was - cents per
! hundred. Flour is . cents per hundred
higher. To Austin The differential IS 5
cents higher On -four. The proportional
rate from Wichita TO Fort Worth is 2Slz
cents and on -four IS cents. From Fort
Worth 10 Austin the rate is l. cents. This
rate Is made on account OF tie Texar-
kama combinations OF local rates. In view
OF this fact the millers and grain men
would take the interstate rate rather than
the combinations Of locals in reaching
their destination from terminal points on
the Rock Island.
Mr. c. W Bleuler. q miller OF Black
well. O. T.. was next called 10 the stand
He stated that when the Texas crop
failed the millers would come 10 Okla
homa and bought wheat. shipped il back
TO Texas, ground it and would success
!
for business in Oklahoma territory. while
the Oklahoma mills were at the same time
shut out Of the Taxas markets. He in
formed the commission that from the best
figures obtainable Texas produced about
100000 bushels of wheat and s.O00O00
bushels were shipped into that state to
supply the demand for flour and 70 keep
the mills busy. In Oklahoma the condi-
tions are different. Her mills cannot
grind the wheat produced in the territory
and the ma jor portion Is shipped out. The
Texas mills are outside the wheat belt
according 10 his statements. but they can
60 to the wheat belt. buy grain. ship il TO
Texas and the -four back and undersen
the miller in the wheat belt. but those
same millers refused 10 allow the miller
in the wheat belt 20 go into Texas and
compete with them. In his opinion the
mills IN the wheat belt should he allowed
to grind all Of the wheat they can and
sell what they are able TO on the local
market. but the rest should be sold wher-
ever it could with no restrictions regard
ing rates.
Continuing. he said that the Texas mills
were not naturally situated in the wheat
built up artihcaliy by this direrentisi
This year there was a failure In Okla
homa and the mills OF that section must
go outside for theie wheat. but they have
none Of the benefits Of the differentlal
that the Texas millers enjoy.
Mr.. Johnson asked did the witness think
he should be allowed 10 so outside OF the
territory and buy wheat and ask for the
protection which the complainants are
trying TO take away from the Texas men.
MIR Bleuler stated that the Oklahoma
millers did not ask for this protection.
The witness also stated that he had been
informed by Mr. Walker. Texas miller.
that the fuel bills OF the mills Of that
state had been reduced fully 80 per cent
since oil was discovered in Texas. This
makes a big difference in the price Of the
finished product.
With the completion OF Mr.. Bluelers
evidence the complainaDts announced
that they would rest.
The railroads had no evidence to offsr.
Frank Kell. a miller OF Wichita Falls.
Tax, was the first witness 10 be called
to the stand by the Texas attorney lie
stated that the Kansas and Oklahoma
milIers were giving the Texas millers
sharper competition in his state. He un-
derstood that the Kansas and Oklahoma
millers enjoyed the free milling in transit
privilege which the Texas millers didi
not have. This is the right granted the
miIlers by the roads on farther without
reconsigning II. He stated that coal was
just as cheap as oil for fuel at the present
time. although it had been cheaper. This
rains in the price Of oil was brought about
because II was feared that the supply
was about to give ont. He claimed that
il the differential was removed IL would
give Kansas and Oklahoma niIlers an ad-
vantage OF cents per hundred pounds
over their own product. He was very
careful 70 enumerate the invisible loss
in his statements about the cost Of mill
ing. but the Kansas miilers present said
that there is no appreciable loss.
Under the rules Of the Texas railroad
commission the roads are allowed 10 make
a charge OF cents per hundred FOR the
reconsignment privilege. which IL not
charged against the Kansas or Oklahoma
miller. Mr. Helm asked why IL was that
the Texas millers expected Kansas MILL
ers 70 suffer because the Texas commits
sion did not see NJ to remove this charge
which was clearly a Discrimination Mr
Kell did not know.
He further stated that he had a con-
tract for oil at a very low figure that Z
would enable him 70 use oil at a less cost (
than coal until 1904 II the company dfd not (
20 out OF business. and he believes that 4
several II not all of the Texas mills had 4
such contracts
Mr. Prouty said that he believed that I
the 5 cent reconsiEument charge made hy /
the Texas railroads Offset the di1eren- /
tial made b. interstate roads. The rail- /
road men said that IL did. but the TEXAS /
men could not see Il that way.
The Texas millers claimed that they 4
were charged h4-cent per ton for back /
hauling. that is. when a mill = situated l
of a main lire Il could get The milling IN i
transit rate. but when they shipped the 4
sour back % the main lire they are
charged i5-csnt per tor extra. The rail-
road men Informed the cemnissioo that
the same was true n Kansas Or anywhere
else.
Mr Keii was unable % explain WHY fhe
direrentisI should not - removed. 80
he vas excused
x-. A r Fsssstt Il wichita county
Texas. was next called. He Is farmer
ard stated that ewing 70 ths ti6srsrtiai
being allowed on Kansas four The farm
err could corapsi The Texas rnsilsrs - pay
.h~-s as rnuch ,or the local wheat -
wichita Fsus - he could get delivered
In Galveston for expert. or from te
oee,s hirhe- than - could Tet ~ ire