The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-01-04
BRIEFS SENT
TO COMMISSION
Statement of Facts Made by
the Attorneys.
DISCRIMINATION EVIDENT
Shows Just Where Wichita
Gets Worst of 1t.

The briefs in the Wichita rate case be-
fore the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion have been printed and have been
sent to the commission.
The complaints made before the COM
mission were regarding rates on grain
and grain products. coal, sugar and lum-
Der.
In the statement Of facts regarding
grain rates it is said that the rate from
Wichita to Galveston is 2s,s cents. while
the fat export rates from Kansas City
TO Galveston on roads passing through
Wichita is at the present time Is cents.
Second, group of towns in the north
east part of Kansas, an average distance
of is miles further from Galveston than
Wichita, represented by Valley Falls.
ETC., have a T-cent rate through Wichita
to Galveston.
Third. group of towns in southeastern
Kansas, represented by Erie, etc., are
given a rate to Galveston of q cents,
when the arbitrary rate from Kansas
City is IL cents, and of % cents when
the arbitrary rate from Kansas City is
Is cents.
Fourth. Lincoln, Neb, 800 miles north
of Wichita. has rate of IS cents to Gal
weston over the Rock Island passing
through Wichita.
Fifth. Wichita is the natural shipping
point OF an extensive grain producing ter
ritory from which Galveston is the nat
ural outlet, and which has sufficient ship
ping facilities to meet all demands.
Sixth. No necessity exists for the grain
produced in the Wichita territory to be
shipped through the Kansas City gate
way, and has heretofore only moved in
that direction because of discriminating
freight rates and fostered facilities by
the railroads.
The complaint in this case alleges that
these rates from Wichita are unjust and
unreasonable in themselves. and are in
violation of section l of the Act to Reg
these rates are unjust and discriminat-
ing. and in violation OF sections and
Of this act; and that these rates violate
the long and short haul provision Of sec
ton Of the act.
The answers filed by tne respective re-
spondents admit the distances and rates
above set out, and it was admitted on
the hearing that these rates violate the
fourth section of this act, but these an
svers deny that these rates from Wichita
are unjust, unreasonable or discriminat-
Ing.
In the coal case the statement OF facts
follows:
THE complaint fled in this case alleges
that coal for the Wichita territory is sup
piled from three districts of supply: Min
den, Mo-; McAlester, i. T., and Russell
vile, Ark. The distance from Minden TO
Wichita is 10 miles, to Kansas City is
12s miles and to st. Joe is 1872 miles. From
McAlester to Wichita it is SIS miles. to
Kansas City S1s miles. and to St. Joe 37s
miles. From Russellville TO Wichita it is
421 miles to Kansas City 457 miles. and to
ST. Joe 81 miles.
The rate on coal from Minden to
Wichita is $1.6o per ton. now reduced to
s1.50 per ton; TO Kansas 20 cents per ton.
and to st. Joe sl.1o per ton. From Nc
Alester to Wichita the rate is $50 per
ton. now reduced TO $3.50; 10 Kansas City
s. %, now s1.75; and to st. Joe SIS. From
Russellvilie to Wichita the rate is $3.50
on coal and 500 on slack: to Kansas
City it is $40 on coal and $3.50 on slack.
now S25 on slack, and TO ST. Joe on
coal s2.4o.
The complaint alleges that these rates
to Wichita are unjust and unreasonable
in themselves and are unjust and discrim-
mating. and In violation OF the first three
sections OF the Act TO Regulate Com
merce.
The answers Of the Missouri Pacific
and the Missouri, Kansas and Texas adj
NIT the correctness OF the above facts.
except that the distance from Minden TO
Wichita may vary a few miles by the
different roads. and alIege that the dis
lance from McAlester to Wichita is sS
miles by one line. and by another Il is
$50 miles. and TO st. Joe 3S miles. The
answer OF the Rock Island admits the
facts as alleged. but denies that IL has
any joint tariff from either mining dis
trict to Kansas City or st. Joe, and all
the answers deny that these rates are
unjust or discriminating to Wichita and
its surrounding territory. II Is. how
ever, TO be noticed that the Santa Fe
and Frisco have filed on answers in this
case.
The evidence clearly establishes the
| fact that the coal mines near Kansas
! City do not furnish sufficient quantity.