The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1905-02-11
The Dicklusou.Speer Bill Hearing.

was glNeu w representatives VI WIG
railroads and shippers interested.
The roads were represented as 4 lows:
The Missouri Pacific by VIM Fl Phelps;
A. G Cochran, general solicitor; ] Q
Lincoln, general freight agent; A.
O. Bird, vice-president and trafic
director Of the Mo P and Wabash;
The Burlington by Judge o. M.
Spencer, general solicitor; Geo. A
Crosby, freight and traffic manager;
and w. G. Maxwell, assistant general
freight agent; The n. K B T. by f.
A. Leland, assistant general freight
agent
Representative Speer introduced
the subject by saying that the bill
had been printed and furnished to
the railroads and to shippers several
weeks ago; that he believed the bill
to be just and It's enactment necessary
to guard The Interests Of interior
towns in the state; that it was con-
stllutlonal and chiefly designed to
prevent the charging Of higher rates
for short hauls than for lOug. He
asked the representatives of the
railroads to show cause, II any, why
the BILL shl uld not become law.
Vim. H. Phelps said that he did
not know that anybody in Missouri
was complaining Of freight rates and
insisted strongly that complaints
against the existing rates he heard
first. The chairman ruled that
r, present, tive Speer had charge OF
the bill and that it was for him TO
declare the order of procedure. Speer
said that the bill had been in the
possession of the railroad represents.
tives for the past two weeks; that IL
was either good bill aud ou. ht to
pass, or else a bad bill and ought 10
be defeated; that whether or not there
was complaining shipper in the
state made 90 difference He insisted
on he order Of procedure first
outlined Phelps said that it was an
astonishing, an outrageous procedure
to ,qure them TO answer complaints
which they had never heard, TO
defend their freight schedule when
they did net know what part OF il
was attacked, to try to satisfy
object0rs when they did not know
who the Obiectors were Judge
Spencer and Judge Cochran agreed
with Phelps exactly, aud warmly
II sy cid not see low they could
thiUk of anything to say unless
somebody could ne found who would
express definite objections to the
present railroad tariffs. The chairman
rather sarcastlcally said that unless
some shipper in the audience should
see fit to afford THESE gentlemen a
subject to talk abodt, they would
have to proceed to tax about the
bill. J. @. McGrew, of Lexington,
said that since the gentlemen insisted
upon complaint for text, that he
as citizen and as shipper COM
planned of the present freight rates:
as a citizen, in that these rates were
n violation of the statutes and the
constitution; and as a shipper. in THAT
they were in many instances both,
iuequitable and excessive.
The railroad attorneys then
Intro duced their freight experts who
talked for three hours. They were
abundantly equipped in the matter
Of Information upon the SUBJECT in
hand but seemed wholly uuaccustomed
to augmentation. Their remarks
were diffuse and inconsecutive, but
seemed to drift toward the following
general conclusions: That railroad
rates are and must be evolutionary,
especially since the same road may
run through many states where
conditions are constantly changing
that no satisfactory freight schedule
can ever be framed along the line OF d
simple principle like that which
governs passenger rates; that the
proposed bill would reduce the tota
freight revenues of the roads by from
thirty to forty per ceDt-much below
the cost Of operating the roads; that
SO per cent Of the freight revenues o.
the roads is derived from interstate
hau's and IA per cent from intra stat,
hauls; that the proposed bill since II
would Gas they alleged) reduce th,
rate In Missouri on interstate hauls
could bring about no other results
4 \