The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-10-22
REPLIES 10 RIPLEY
Attorney General Hadley Defends His
Position on Rate Regulation.


Jefferson City. Oct. 22-Herbert S.
Hadley, attorney general, when asked
If he cared to make any answer to the
interview of Mr. Ripley. president of
the Santa Fe Railroad company, pub
lished las week, criticising his state
ment in an address delivered before the
convention of attorneys general in St
Louis As to the right of a railroad to a
profit on its investment, said:
I am glad to discuss the questions
suggested by Mr. Ripley's interview, as
a correct understanding of these ques-
lions by the people is necessary for a
proper solution of the problem of rail-
road rate regulation.
THE answer that Mr.. Ripley makes
to the statement in my address to the
effect that the law allows to a railroad
company only a reasonable return
upon a fair of its property is
certainly a most remarkable contribu-
ton to the discussion OF this question.
1t is also characteristic of the attitude
and those in charge of railroad proper
ties assume in opposition to the efforts
of the people to secure fair and equal
railroad freight and passenger rates.
In my address I aid that a railroad
company was entitled to only a reason
able return upon it's investment, while
an ordinary business enterprise was not
subject to such a legal limitation This
doctrine, Mr.. Ripley says, is pure con-
hScation,' and he expresses himself as
COII1lQeIj that SUCH d IlOlSlLOQS "
ma will never commend Itself to the
citizen who does his own thinking.
1t Is the Unwritten Law.
IF Mr.. Ripley had taken the trouble
to consult any member of his legal de-
partment ne doubtless would have been
informed that what I said as to the
right to a profit on railroad investments
was simply a statement of our common
or unwritten law since railroads began
their operations
and. further, it was the doctrine
of the common law of England before
our nation had its birth that when
men invested their money in a bust
ness which was in its nature a monop-
oily or devoted to a public use they
were not entitled to more than a rea-
Sonable return upon their investment
The right of the public to fix rea-
sonable rates for such enterprises is
p~redieated upon the proposition that
those operating such enterprises are
entitled only to a reasonable return
This is the principle which justified
the enactment of the public utilities
law by the last legislature In fact.
the supreme court of the United
States in Mum VS.. Illinois "a u 5.
113, decided that when men invest
their money in a business such as a
railway, street railway OF a public
elevator enterprise impressed with a
public use it is the right of the people,
through legislative enactmentS, to fix
the amount OF the return upon the IN
vestment.
Surprised at Ripley's Ignorance.
"That the court has departed from
this doctrine to the extent that the
regulation of the rates by the public
must give to the owners of such prop
erty a reasonable return has left I'M
impaired the principle that they have
only that right to such a profit in such
an enterprise. The surprising prop
osition is that the president of one of
the great railroad systems of the
country should not know this funda-
mental principle of our common and
our statute law. which determinates
and establishes the obligations of his
road to the people that he should
characterize this principle. declared
over and over again by our courts as q
doctrine of confiscation' and as "a
monstrous dogma
"Mr. Ripley. in his apparent
ignorance of the law, undertakes to
argue that he and his associates
should as a matter of right be entitled
to make as much money through the
operation of their railroad as those
men are entitled to max who invest
their money in an ordinary business
e~nterpriSe."