The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-12-15
FWEPER CENT CUT
Railroad Board Gives Grain Ship
pers Small Reduction.
They Asked for a % Per Cent
Cut in Freight.
ONE STOOD FOR Is.
Walker and Robson We're Afraid
for MiIlers.
They Concluded Railroads w Ould
Stand Small Cut.
ONE STOOD FOR Is.

The order does not apply to -four or
other grain products and if the rail-
roads refuse to maintain the parity of
the grain products with grain, another
complaint will have to be fled with the
board.
It is believed that the railroads will
put in the rate without opposition, /
and that they will not interfere with
the transit privileges which have
been granted to millers. The reduc- /
ton will amount to only about "a on
the average car of wheat from the
Kansas wheat growing counties to |
Kansas City. On shorter hauls, the /
reduction viii be prOportionately |
smaller.
1t is reported that Commissioner
Wheatley was in favor of reducing the |
rates Is per cent, but Commissioners |
Robson and Walker thought that /
reduction of more than 5 per cent
might cause the railroads to cancel the !
milling in transit privilege. Carr Tay- /
Tor, attorney for the board, insisted
that a Is per cent reduction might be
made without any danger of the can
collation. of the transit privileges.
Railroads Fought by Proxy.
The feature of the hearing was the
absence Of any testimony on the part
of the railroad companies in defense
of existing rates. They relied solely
on the assistance of the Kansas millers
to defeat any reduction in rates.
Nearly the whole day Thursday was
devoted to the introduction of teSti-
mony on behalf of the millers to show
that a withdrawal of the milling in
transit privilege, as threatened by the
railroads as a consequence of any rate
reduction, would ruin the milling in
dustry of the state. This part of the
investigation was conducted by John
H. Atwood, of LeavenwOrth, who pre-
sented a number of witnesses who as
serted positively that their milling and
elevator business would be ruined by a
withdrawal of the transit privileges.
After the testimony was all in, Carr
Taylor, attorney for the board, asked
leave to amend the petition which he
had filed by including in it request
for reduction in the rates on grain
products to correspond with whatever
reduction might be made in the grain
rates.
''It was brought out by Mr.. Atwood.
who filed the interplea on behalf of
the millers," said Mr.. Taylor, that the
millers would have to have reduc-I
ton in the freight rates on their prod
ucts to equalize the reduction in grain
rates. if any is made. It has long been
the custom for the railroads to haul
grain products at the same rate as
grain, and we ask that this be con-
tinued."
Don't you think that such a change
might invahdate any order the board
might make" inquired Commissioner
Wheatley.
II do not" said Mr.. Taylor. ''It is
the same form of procedure as pre-
walls in the district court It is per-
MISSILE there to amend the petition
after the evidence is in, if it appears
that the evidence developed does not
follow exactly the lines of the COM
plant. That is what ask in this
case"
at seems to be up to US to object to
such an action" said n. H. LOOMS,
attorney for the Union Pacific. 1T is
not right to amend the petition at this
| time. We came to this hearing basing
our defense upon the statements of the
/ petition. Now it seems that Mr.. Taylor
! is seeking to make it much more COM
/ preh ensive. We certainly object to
4 that"
The board took Mr.. Taylor's request
/ under advisement for the time being,
but when they announced their de-
/ cision in the case, held that it would
/ be improper to include the rates on
/ grain products.
They said that if Mr. Taylor desired
/ to amend his petition to conform with
the interplea, he should have done so
/ imme diately after the interplea was
/ introduced, and not after the testimony
1 had all been taken. They thought it
/ which the board made in the grain
rate proposition to allow the rates on
grain products to become involved.
Testimony of NIilIers.
Included in the list of witness called
4 by Mr.. Atwood on behalf of the mil
/ lers of the state were George NJ. Ran
! dali of Lyons, Charles H. Soaring of
/ Arkansas City, Charles NJ. Wallace of
| Winfield, S. B. Carter of wellington
H. Parker of NcPh erson, r. J. Nevlin
! of Wichita and George Hackney of
/ Topeka.
Mr.. Soaring said in part: eff the
railroads should withdraw this milling
in transit privilege, it would cripple us
! so seriously that we could not continue
to do business. The same would be
true if the board made a reduction in
grain, and not in grain products. 1t is
my opinion that a reduction of cents
in grain rates would break the market
Just about the amount of the reduc-
ton"
S. B. Carter of wellington said: st
have been in business twenty years.
At first had merely an elevator, but
I had to build a mill in order to meet
the competition of other nlillers in my
town. They were paying more for
grain than I could pay. We all paw
about or cents more than the kan
sas City prices.
George NJ. Randall, who owns a $50
( barrel mill at Lyons said: ''I could
not do business withOu the milling in
transit privilege. The presence of
mills in Kansas enables farmers to get
= from to cents more per bushel for
their grain than they otherwise
would"
H. Parker of Mcpherson. said: ct
have several elevators and clean wheat
for sale to millers. Ny plant at Me-
Pherson is worth S25,O0o but I would
sell it for $500 if the cleaning in tran
sit privilege should be taken awav
pay every day from to cents higher
per bushel than the Kansas CITY price. .
The testimony Of all the millers call
ed on behalf of the interpleaders was
that the milling in transit privileges
l had enabled Kansas to build up bis
2 milling interests. which had in turn in
2 creased the price paid for wheat and
: other grain much more than the farm