Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1906-10-18

ages.
Realizing, that any proposition o
motion | may make for the relic
of the people will moi be foyarabl,
considered by this board, but to show
that l do not ask an unreasonable re
duction, l offer the following grad
uate card applying to packages from
l to 100 pounds, as a substitute fol
the rate proposed by Mr.. Wightman
and move its 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.. Wightman. They
are here for your inspection. The
one | presented provided for a 20
cent. m~inimum-the one Mr.. Wight.
mar presented and had adopted does
not change the minimum. 1t remains
rs cents-just as the express com.
panies themselves fixed it. Mr.,
Wightman's schedule, according to my
estimate, reduces express rates in
Missouri about 1 per cent; the sched-
ule | 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 1, 1905, if they
have noticed any reduction in rates?
You couldn't detect it with a micro
scope!
And now l want to ask you candid
ly-Republicans and Democrats-if
you want a man on this board who
will vote with Mr.. Wightman against
a reasonable reduction in express
rates?
And I 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. I did not
believe the evidence the express COM
panies presented against a reduction
would be accepted in any court of
law; | 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 Gen
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 go, 1905.
Hon. John A. Knott,
Railroad & Warehouse Com.
City.
Dear Sir:
I 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 a 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 a COM
bination exists among the express
companies of the country, and l 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-five 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. I beg to suggest,
however, that I 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
onrn,n.,nfft,n ~ fh1 nUrpnCC nnnn-
panies and the railroad companies de-
fend this charge, would indicate that
their positions were not particularly
a%ntagonistic.
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 ac-
cepted' 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 a dis
elimination within the meaning Of the
statute.
Very respectfully submitted,
HERBERT s. HADLEY,
Attorney General.
But the fact that General Hadley
said that the evidence of witnesses
for the express companies themselves
tended to show that the express com
panies were maintaining a trust or
pool in violation of the laws, of Mis-
souri, and that the evidence present
ed to show that the proposed
reduced rates were too low and in
some instances confiscatory, would
not be accepted in any court Of law"
the Republican member of the COM
mission insisted upon voting for practi-
cally no reduction in rates.
I desire to say here in justice to
a good official, that General Hadley