Mexico Missouri message. (Mexico, Audrain County, Mo.) 1899-1918, 1906-10-18
board
FrIenht Rates.

New let's See how the present Re
publican member performed on the
freight rate question.
You remember there was an oil
freight rate hearing held not long
ago in st. Louis. Here is the rec
ord:
March s, 1eO6--In the matter OF the
application Of the National Refining
Company for a reduction of oil rates
between St. Louis and Kansas City,
1t developed that the railroads were
charging II cents per hundred pounds
in one direction and 20 cents in the
opposite direction.
After hearing the evidence, Com
missioner Knott moved that the rate
be reduced TO IA cents to apply in
both directions
Chairman Rice refused to entertain
the motion. Commissioner Knott ap-
pealed to Commissioner Wightman
who sustained the chair"
In the afternoon the matter was
again taken up, when Commissioner
Wightman moved that the rate be
made II cents in each direction. Com
missioner Rice moved to strike out
IL cents and insert cents.
Commissioner Knott made the fol-
lowing statement:
'As between these two propositions
one by Commissioner Wightman
making the rate NJ cents and the one
by Commissioner Rice making the
rate 0 cents, / shall vote with Com
missioner Rice, regardless of whether
the latter rate is named for the reason
that 1t is believed to be too low and
will be resisted by the railroads and
relief to the people will be delayed un-
til the matter can be determined by
the courts, my opinion is that the lat
ter rate is more equitable than the
former"
The 8 cent rate was adopted. Rice
and Knott voting yes, and Wightmrn
voting no.
March 19-The matter of the oil
rate was again taken up.
Commissioner Wightman moved to
reconsider the vote by which the rate
on oil between st. Louis and Kansas
City had been reduced to 8 cents per
100 pounds as shown by the minutes
of March 5th."
The vote resulted: Wightman ard
Rice, yes; Knott, no.
"Mr. Wightman then movd thHt
the rate of II cents be put into effect
between st. Louis and Kansas City,
both ways without discrimination for
or against any locality, this being a
reduction of % per cent on west-bouI
rates"
Commissioner Knott again proteg t.
ed, making the following statemen
Il am opposed to the motion, mat
by Commissioner Wightman for Il
following reasons:
"First-Because it does not reduce
the rate at all, the % cent rate, wes.-
bound, having always been in open
violation of the statutes of Missouri
it being illegal to charge more for
the same distance over the same rails
going in one direction than another
direction.
"Second-Because the rate propos-
ed by Commissioner Wightman corr
pared with the rates voluntarily MADE
by railroads for hauling the same pr J.
duct, is outrageously unjust to tie
people of this state b. l do not be-
lieve it is justice to the people If
Missouri to compel them to pay II
cents for hauling oil 283 miles, Kansas
City to st. Louis, when precisely tie
same roads transport the same pr J.
duct 458 miles, Neodesha, Kansas o
st. Louis, for exactly the same rat ,,
II cents, the distance being 175 miles
greater.
81 do not believe that the people of
Missouri should be compelled to pay
II cents for hauling oil 283 miles when
oil is hauled voluntarily
From FindTey, Ohio, to Chicago, $40
miles, for IL cents.
From Cleveland, Ohio, to Cincinnati,
230 miles, for 10 cents.
From Findley, Ohio, to East st.
Louis, 416 miles, for 10 cents.
From Chicago to New Orleans, 800
miles, 20 cents.
From any point in Kansas to airy
point in Kansas, $50 miles for 10 IL
cents.
"These figures show an average
rate for the distance between st.
Louis and Kansas City, 283 miles, Of
about IL cents.
However, in a spirit Of comprom-
Use, offer as a substitute for Mr..
Wightman's motion, that the rate be
made Ia cents both ways between
Kansas City and st. Louis, rate
l am sure that will stand the test of
tn courts and give the people substan-
tial relief"
These figures, resented in evidence,
under oath, had no effect on the Re
publican member of the board. He
presented his motion for a II cent
rate-no reduction-and won the vic
tory for the railroads, Commissioner
Rice voting with him.
But, you ask, Mr.. Rice being
Democrat, why didn't he vote with
you?
answer, you are not concerned
about Mr. Rice now. He retires from
the board the first of next January.
The question is now, do you want
a man who will continue to vote with
Mr.. Wightman on these important pro-