The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-28
Madison Branch People Lose
the First Round.
Special Master Reports Against
Passenger Service.
HAS NO JURISDICTION
Says That Service Asked for Is
Interstate.
Therefore Kansas Board Must
Keep Hands Off.


T. F. Carver, special master in the
Madison branch case in the Kansas su-
preme court, today filed his findings of
fact and of law with the court. in
which he upholds the Missouri Pacific
in refusing to establish a separate pas
senger service on the line of9their road
| from Madison, Kan, east to Butler,
Mo
| Mr.. Carver reaches this conclusion
solely on the ground that the line of
road involved in the controversy is in
! terstate, and that the railroad board
| and the Kansas courts have no jurisdic-
| ton over it.
On the merits of the case, he finds
entirely in favor Of the people demand
| ing more passenger train service on the
Madison branch. He holds that in
considering the earning power of the
road, the Madison branch must be con-
sidered as an essential portion of the
Missouri Pacific railroad, and that If
the Missouri Pacific can afford to put
on the special passenger service, the
order can be issued. He also holds that
even considered on the basis of the
earnings OF this one branch by itself,
the Missouri Pacific could afford to run
motor car propelled by gasoline, and
he finds that such cars are in practical
operation on some roads and have been
for several years.
6OIn OF these innings IN FAVOR OF
the people, however, are offset by the
finding that the whole proposition is
Interstate, and should be referred to
the interstate commerce commission.
The referee finds that the Madison
branch runs through an agricultural
country, and that Mound City is the
only large town. Separate passenger
service was maintained on this line for
cause it didn't pay, and the only SER
vice now is a mixed train daily. The
railroad commissioners ordered that
passenger service be restored, and the
court to enforce the order.
Concerning the claim that the Mis-
souri, Pacific cannot get into court be-
cause it failed to start proceedings to
set aside the order of the commits
sion within the so day limit the
referee says:
THE defendant is not estopped
from setting up and making the sew
eral defenses contained in the return
to the alternative writ merely because
it instituted no proceedings to set
aside the order of the board of rail
road com miSSiOnerS.
The following findings of fact in
volving the real merits of the case
were in favor of the people making
the complaint:
''Since the defendant has combined
this line of road, for operation, man
agement and accounting with the
Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway
company lines, so dS 10 pracIcaIly
constitute the twelve lines embraced
in that company a single unit for the
purpose of operation, and no definite |
entertainment can be made of the
actual earnings of the Madison line, |
u separate passenger service should
be maintained in the net earnings of
the Kansas G. Colorado Pacific justify |
such service.
THE Madison line is interstate in |
upon it's own traffic and not used as a |
feeder to other Missouri Pacific lines |
would not pay the cost of maintaining |
separate passenger service, and an or |
sOnable. But considered a part of |
the Missouri Pacific system, 1 think a |
requirement of such service would |
not be unreasonable.
The sections of the findings which |
proved fatal to the Madison branch |
people were as follows:
1.-The Madison line is interesting in |
construction, connections and opera |
ton, the running of trains from Madi- |
son to Montieth Junction or Butler |
being necessary in order to give the |
operating company any reasonable |
opportunity to meet expenses of such |
operation. 1t will be unreasonable to |
require a separate passenger train to |
be operated on this line only within
the state.
''As the state can not exercise con-
troll over interstate operation of rail-
roads, an order can not be made for
the running of trains from Montieth |
Junction to any point in Kansas. Such
an order must emanate from the in
terstate commerce commission.
For the reasons stated in the last
two preceding conclusions. the writ
asked for can not be allowed
Concerning motor cars, the findings
are as follows
a''The evidence shows that motor
cars, gasolene engine power have
been operated for a year or more by
some railroad companies with fair
success, and at a cost of operation
much less than necessary in case of
ordinary passenger trains. Such motor
cars require a crew of only two men,
and for fuel consume about half a gall
lon of gasolene per mile. Their use |
and operation are feasible on such a
line az the one in question, and would |
furnish a service probably adequate !
to accommodate all passenger travel
on this line