The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-14
Pullman Skirmish Opens Before
Railroad Board.
The Company Says Keep State
Hands OFF.
STRETCH AUTHORITY
Can't Be Taken Outside Letter
Of the Law.
Mr.. Taylor Says Legislature
Meant the Pullman.

indications are that the state board
of railroad commissioners will decide
that it has jurisdiction over the affairs
of the Pullman company in the state
of Kansas, and will proceed to deter
mine whether the rates which the
Pullman company is charging in the
state are fair.
At the hearing of the argument on
the question of the jurisdiction OF the
board over the Pullman company at
the state house Tuesday afternoon, At
torney Carr Taylor, the legal repre-
sentative of the people, advised the
board to assume jurisdiction Of the
case, and let the Pullman company
test the ruling in the courts in case it
SO desired.
This board is not supposed to be
Of judicial nature said Mr- Taylor
s'It is rather a legislative body. There
is no doubt that it was the intention
of the legislature to give the board
authority over the Pullman company
Whether it expressed its intention
with sufficient clearness is point
which the courts should decide"
The board then announced that 1t
would decide the point of jurisdiction
on June 20. and if the decision was
that jurisdiction exists, it will hear the
evidence and go into the merits of the
controversy on June 27- The fact that
the board fixed a time for hearing the
evidence indicates that it expects TO
give the question a hearing.
The nominal issue in the case,
which was filed by R. S. Cones OF
Garden City, is that the Pullman com
pany charges more for the use of its
cars between Garden City and Kansas
City than it charges for other similar
distances. Cones wants the rates OF
fare adjusted.
The Real Issue.
But the real point at issue is wheth-
er the state board of railroad commls-
sioners has any jurisdiction over the
/ Pullman company. Heretofore. as
stated in the course of the argument
yesterday afternoon by the attorneys
for the Pullman company, the railroad
boards of the state have held that
they had no jurisdiction over the af-
fairs of the company. The company
has managed to persuade the board
that the title Of the railroad law ap-
plies only to railroads and common
/ carriers, ana that the Pullman com
1pany is neither one. 1t was on this
proposition that the argument center
/ ed Yesterday. Judge J. S. West spoke
for the Pullman company, and Charles
fBlood Smith was also present and
made a few remarks carr Iaylor
argued on behalf of the complainant,
Cones. Mr.. Cones was not present.
Judge West said: ''The charter
which was granted by the state char
ter board to the Pullman company,
with certain provisions concerning
fees,
man company. We would be glad to
submit that charter to the board as
showing the objects of the company.
''The Pullman company is not
common carrier. Because the Pull
man company furnishes cars to rail-
road company for the railroad to use
does not make the Pullman company
la common carrier. There is a com
pany which by contract with the rail-
road company is allowed to put its
cars, but that does not make it q COM
mon carrier. Unless the Pullman
company is a common carrier there
is no doubt that the board of rail-
road commissioners has no jurisdic-
1.-THE board has no right to stretch
its authority beyond the plain letter
of the statute. Both of the railroad
acts of this state refer exclusively to
railroad companies in fact, and not to
the Pullman company. The Pullman
company has nothing to do with
carrying passengers. 1t merely says
that if a person has a right to ride on
a train he can also have the right to
use a certain kind of a seat or a place
to sleep
State Meant the Pullman.
Carr Taylor. attorney for the board,
then said: There is no question in my
mind that the board has jurisdiction in
this case. Section 81 of the law says
that the term railroad company shall
include any person or corporation us
ing a railroad operated by steam, or
using any portion Of this line. Section
7 gives the board authority over rail-
roads, express companies, sleeping car
companies and all other persons doing
business a S common carriers. therefore
7 take it that when the title of the act
refers to a railroad it means to include
sleeping car companies.
THE question has not been Squarely
raised in the United States supreme
court as to whether the Pullman COM
pany is a common carrier. When 1t has
been presented it has been involved in
some other contention. The supreme
court has in this way said the Pullman
company is not a common carrier, but
it has not declared it to be a hotel
company. When this question is square
lv raised [ believe it will be held that
the Pullman company is a common car
rier According to my view of this case,
these matters are not in point The
whole thing turns on the Interpretation
of section 37 of the old railroad law If
the board has jurisdiction it can go
ahead and decide whether rates between
points within the state are reasonable
If there is a single case where the prfn-
cipal issue was whether the Pullman
companv is a common carrier, 1 would
like to see it. The Pullman car can
make no money unless it is moving and
CARRYING passengers. I undertake to
say, that no one can be disbarred from
riding in Pullman car unless that
person is in some way objectionable TO
the other passengers. Therefore the
Pullman company I believe will be de-
cIared to be a common carrier if the is
sue is ever squarely raised in court