The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-11-09
R. R. LAW IS GOOD
Supreme Court Upholds the
Kansas R. R. Board.
Missouri Pacific Mast Obey the
Boards Orders.
VETERAN LAW VALID
But Appointing Power Sole
Judge of Qualifications.
Court Reverses Itself n JOintist
Fee Case.
AGAINST HANSFORD.
Held That Topeka Man May BE
Again Tried.
VETERAN LAW VALID
But Appointing Power Sole
Judge of Qualifications.
Court Reverses Itself IN JOintist
Fee Case.
AGAINST HANSFORD.
Held That Topeka Man May BE
Again Tried.

BY decision Of the supreme cour'
handed down this afternoon the Mis-
souri, Pacific railroad is ordered to es-
tablish a daily passenger train SER
vice on the Madison branch of the
road. In granting the writ of man
damus asked for by the attorney gen.
eral and the board of railroad COM
missioner the supreme court has held
that the law permitting the board OF
railroad commissioners to regulate
train service to be constitutional.
The contention of B. P. Waggoner
for. the road was that the enforcement
OF the law would be an interference
with interstate commerce. The Mis-
souri, Pacific has been operating a
mixed train on this branch for num-
Der of years. Though its contract
with the different counties which vot-
ed bonds for the construction of the
road called for daily passenger SER
vice and the road has steadfastly re-
fused to fulfill this part of the agree
ment.
The court says that the law Great
ing the board of railroad OmmiSS1On-
ers did not delegate to the board any
legislative powers but it did delegate
to the board certain functions admin
iStrative in character which could not
be performed by the legislature itself.
1t is further held that the board has
no executive or judicial powers al
though 1t is required to exercise judg-
ment and discretion in making orders
for the regulation and control of rail-
roads. The railroad company con-
tended that the board was Illegal be-
cause the constitution made no pro-
vision for its creation but the court
says that this is not well taken be-
cause the constitution did not limit
the subjects on which the legislature
could enact laws.
The court maintains that when the
board of railroad commissioners has a
r ~ q n n nh nd
makes an order after this hearing
that the order itself will be taken as
prima facie evidence that what it con-
tains is reasonable and that the rail-
road company affected must show to
the court that it is unreasonable. In
this case the company made no show
ing that the order was unreasonable
but attacked the law and used all of
its efforts to have the law knocked
out. 1t is held by the court that the
company should have attacked the or
der of the board that it was unreas-
enable and not refuse to obey the law
and let the state begin an action to
compel them to obey the order.
One provision in the decision Is Of
great Importance as bearing on the two
cent passenger fare and the reduction
of freight rates. The company opera
ted a passenger train on the Madison
branch in 1902 and 1908 and it was shown
that this was done at a loss. However,
1t was not shown that the passenger
and freight receipts combined caused a
loss in the operation of the line and the
court cites many authorities to show
that even though the receipts of the
passenger service alone were insufficient,
yet If the combined revenues of freight
and passenger traffic was sufficient to
bear both branches of service and yield
a profit the passenger service should be
operated. The court holds that the rev.
enues from all branches of service must
be considered and not the revenue from
0ra determining
whether passenger service should be
given the patrons of the road.
The court takes exceptions to the find
ings Of the referee in the case in that
it holds that the revenues from the
Madison branch in Kansas can be con-
Sidered alone and not as part of the
entire Missouri Pacific system. The
referee held that the revenues from this
revenues of all the other lines of the
system in way to determine the exact
earning power of the Madison branch.
The court held that the Missouri Pacific
did not make it's reports in a way that
would show a true earning power of the
Madison branch and that wrong COM
parsons were drawn. The court says
that the company was given an oppor-
business arising wholly within the state
was not enough to pay operating ex-
penses, fixed charges and show a profit
but it did not do SO.
One of the contentious of the Missouri
Pacific was that the board in its order
had no right to advise the use of mo-
tor cars on the Madison branch. The
board in its order provided that either
a passenger train or motor cars should
be operated The court says that while
there might be some question as to the
right of the board to order motor cars
still this was an alternative offered the
road and was in favor of the company
II 1t desired to use 1t.
Appointing Power May Decide.
The supreme court holds that the
soldiers and sailors preference law is
and says that it is the
duty of the appointing power to deter
mine whether or not that the applicant
mas the qualifications required and the |
decision If made fairly and in good
faith is final. This decision was hand |
ed down by Justice Graves in the APP
plication for custer against George K. |
Addison, sanitary sergeant; ]. L. B. |
Eager city physician; Larkin Norman, |
building inspector; Alex Eagle, police !
clerk, and R. L. McAlpine, city engi- |
neer, of Kansas City, Kansas.
The county attorney sought to GUST |
them on the grounds that veterans had |
applied for a position but were not APP
pointed. The court does not decide that |
these men are to be discharged as the |
decision was on a demurrer by the |
oficeholders to have the case thrown |
out OF court but it concludes that a |
veteran If upon a fair and impartial
Inquiry conducted by a public officer