The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-12-23
CUT OF TEN CENTS
1t Is Ordered in Coal Rates to
Wichita,
Railroads Deny Authority of
the Board.

The state board of railroad commits
sioners has rendered a decision in the.
Wichita coal rate case by ordering
reduction of 10 cents a ton on the
Wichita from the Pittsburg district.
This reduces the rate on lump coal
from $1.60 to $3.50 per ton, and on slack
from $1.35 to $1.25 a ton. While this
does not bring the rate down to an
equality with that of the rates to points
in other states, according to the show
ing made by the attorneys for the city
of Wichita, if the ruling is accepted by
the railroads it will at least establish
the precedent that the state board of
railroad commissioners have the power
to reduce rates.
This is the first time an order of this
KIND has been made by the board, and
1t is possible that the board does not
wish to make too radical ruling on
the start. The railroads, too may fight
the reduction and compel the board to
Df1ng mandamuS proceedings in the
supreme court to compel them to put
the rate into effect. This would estab-
llsn 10 a certainty the powers of the
railroad board over the rate question.
II this sort of an order stands for
Wichita, the board may have a chance
TO make a similar ruling for Topeka At
present Topeka is paying sixty cents
ton for hauling coal from the Usage
county fields, distance of about thirty
miles. This is two cents per ton per
mile, and today word comes from
scranton that the roads are threatening
to advance the rate 20 per cent if the
shippers refuse to stand the shrinkage
in shipments themselves.
The present rate from the Usage fields
to Topeka is far greater, mileage con-
sidered, than the Wichita rate which
the railroad commissioners have lust
ordered reduced
1t is possible that the railroads will
comply with the order made in the
Wichita case, and still contend that the
frsf
They may do as they did in the cattle
mems case a few months ago, capitu-
late on the ground that the complaint
OF the city is just and not on the ground
that the board of railroad commission
ers has any power over rates, other
than an advisory one.
Another point which the railroad
board is now called upon to definitely
determine is whether a railroad COM
pany can be compelled to grant elevator
sites on their right of way The point
comes up in the complaint filed against
the Santa Fe by the Farmers Cooper
vile and Zenith, which was argued be-
fore the board Tuesday afternoon.
Judge s. H. Allen, who represented
the compliments, is doubtful about the
board having power to compel the rail-
road companies to make an order out
right to furnish a site for an elevator
on the property Of the railroad COM
pany, but it can make an order to COM
pei the company to maintain suitable
facilities for the shipment of freight
1t can compel the maintenance of
depots for the handling of freight, and
it is argued that it can also compel the
maintenance of depots for the handling
of grain, which would be the same as
warehouses or elevators. And if the
railroad company gives certain private
individuals the right to run such ware
houses, and these individuals do not
run them satisfactorily to the public,
it is argued that other facilities must
be provided.
farmer, a member of the farmers or
ganization at Zenith, testified that one
of the old elevators short-weighted the
farmers and would not pay them as
much for their grain as it was worth
He said he shipped four cars of grain
to Kansas City and took the destina-
ton weights, which showed 1d2 bushels
more than the weights at the Zenith
elevator. He also says he netted three
cents per buShel more than he was OF
! fered at Zenith.
A. A. Hurd, general attorney for the
! Santa Fe, was present att the hearing
| but attempted no defense. He main
| tains that the board of railroad COM
missioners has no authority to compel
! q railroad company to give a site on its
| property for the building of an elevator,
especially when there is no room FOR
| such an elevator.
] This same question once came up IN
a complaint from Marquette against the
! Missouri Pacific when the present board
was first instituted. The board made
an order instructing the Missouri Pa
cific to grant the site for the elevator,
but after receiving an opinion from A.
A GODDARD, who was attorney general
at the time no effort was made to en-
force the order.
If the farmers cannot secure an eleva-
tor site on the railroad right of way, 1T
is argued that they can get around the
difficulty by building their elevator just
off the right of way and that the rail-
road company can then be compelled to