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


ages.
Realizing that any proposition or
motion may make for the relief
OF the people will not be fovarably
considered by this board, but to show
that do not ask an unreasonable re-
duction, l offer the following grad.
uate card applying to packages from
] to 100 pounds, as substitute for
the rate proposed by Mr.. wightman,
and move It's adoption"
The vote on the substitute resulted
as follows: Wightman and Rice, no;
Knott, yes.
Here are the schedules-the one
championed my myself and the one
championed by Mr.. Wlghtman. They
are here for your inspection. The
one l presented provided for a 20
cent minimum-the one Mr.. Wight
man presented and had adopted does
not change the minimum. II remains
25 cents-just as the express COM
panies themselves fixed It. Mr..
Nightmares schedule, according to my
estimate, reduces express rates In
Missouri about 1 per cent; the SEIZED
ule l presented would have reduced
the rates at least 20 per cent.
The express companies claim that
Missouri has the lowest express rates
of any state in the nation. want
to ask the merchants and the people
generally who have paid express
charges since May l, 1905, IL they
have noticed any reduction in rates?
You couldn't detect 1t with a micro
scope!
And now I want to ask you candid
ly-Republicans and Democrats-if
you want man on this board who
will vote with Mr.. Wightman against
reasonable reduction in express
rates?
And 1 have a little more TO tell
you about this express rate contro-
versy.
So anxious was l to give the peo-
pie relief, l made every effort to bring
influence to bear on Mr.. Wightman
to induce him to vote to give relief
to the people in this matter. At my
suggestion a representative of the at
torney generals office was present
during the express hearing. l did not
believe the evidence the express COM
panies presented against a reduction
would be accepted in any court of
law; l believed that by their own
evidence they had confessed to being
in a pool or trust; l believed that
they had agreed to pay the railroad
companies so to So per cent of their
gross earnings for the sole purpose of
deceiving the people as to their ac-
tual earnings, and | submitted these
questions to Acknowledgement Hadley
for his opinion. And here is Cen
eral Hadley's reply, which was read
by Mr.. Wightman before he voted on
the express rate. l will read Gener-
al Hadley's letter for your informa-
ton:
March 20, 1905.
Hon. John A. Knott,
Railroad & Warehouse Com.
City.
Dear Sir:
beg to acknowledge receipt of
favor of the 21st inst, in which you
request an answer to a number of
questions which have arisen in refer
ence to the recent hearing given by
your board to the express companies
doing business in this State.
In answer to your first question, as
to whether the testimony offered tend
ed to show that the express COM
panies are engaged in the mainten-
ance Of pool or trust in violation Of
the laws of this state, l beg to ad-
wise you that this evidence tends
very strongly to show that such COM
binatiOn exists among the express
companies of the country, and should
be pleased to have you submit to me
a copy of the evidence in this re-
gard.
In answer to your second question
necessitates a decision of an issue
of fact, rather than of law. The ques-
ton as to whether the payment by the
express companies of from fifty to
fifty-fiye per cent of their gross earn
ings is a reasonable charge for the
services rendered by the railroad COM
panies, is a question that requires for
it's proper decision and consideration
all other charges by railroad COM
panies for similar services, and upon
this point you are fully as competent
to Judge as l am. l beg to suggest,
however that l am impressed with
the idea that the railroad companies
are, at least, getting their full share
of the earnings of the express COM
panies, and the fact that both the
representatives of the express com
panies and the railroad companies de-
fend this charge, would indicate that
their positions were not particularly
antagonistic.
In answer to your second question
beg to reply that the evidence offer
ed by the express companies is not
legal evidence such as would be &C
copied In any court of law.
In answer to your fourth question,
/ am of the opinion that the merchan-
disc rate extended by the express
companies to one class only is dis
elimination within the meaning Of the
statute.
Very respectfully submitted,
HERBERT S. HADLEY,
Attorney General.
A. RoaA &t,,A HauaroI LIadIaU