The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-10

In rates were made in the state of
Kansas without also making reduce
would in a great many instances ex-
tend to and reach the principal mar
kets Of the United States to which the
products of Kansas are shipped.
Discrimination Is Alleged.
Your orator further alleges that the
jobbers' rates prescribed by its board
OF railroad commissioners in said
schedules single out certain individ-
uals, corporations, cities and communi-
ties and grant to them rates which are
lower than the rates which your orator
and the other common carriers of the
state are compelled to give to other in
divtduals, corporations, cities or COM
mundties under similar circumstances
and conditions and that the action of
the board in so doing discriminates
against the Individuals corporations,
cities and communities not named in
said schedules and in favor of the indi-
viduals, corporations, cities and COM
munitieS therein mentioned and des-
cribed.
Your orator further alleges that un-
der the laws of Kansas the board of
railroad commissioners in the fixing of
railroad rates. are only permitted to act
upon the complaint of interested par
ties or the attorney for the board, but
that without due regard to said laws
the said board caused the schedules
contained in exhibit A to be prepared
without any complaint as to rates hav-
ing been previously made, and thereaf-
ter instructed the attorney for the board
to file the complaint upon which its or
der was afterwards based, fixing the
rates prescribed in said schedules as
the rates which should be effective on
and after April 1, 1908 And your orator
further alleges that the attorney for
the board actually filed the complaint
upon which the board acted in pur-
suance to the authority so given and in
obedience thereto. Your orator there
fore submits that the safeguards which
were enacted for the purpose of secur-
ing to your orator fair and impartial
hearing before a fair and impartial
tribunal were disregarded, and that the
rates of which it complains were fixed
by board of acting upon its own COM
plaint.
The petitions of the Rock Island
and Frisco railroads contend that the
direct effect of the reductions If made
would be to reduce that the interstate
rates. Because the object and pur-
pose as well as the necessary direct
effect in said order and it's several
rates, charges, tariffs, cIassifications,
rules and regulations is to reduce and
regulate interstate rates and compel
reduction and regulation in the
through or interstate rates in force
upon the lines of railway in Kansas"
Rosedale, Kansas, and Kansas City
are practically common
points is the further claim made, and
to reduce the rates to one point and
not to the other would mean discrim-
ination and the only result must mean
a reduction in the rates to both
points.
In support of the claim that the
proposed rates are conr1scatory it is
stated: Because the rates are not
based upon actual conditions but up
On conditions prevailing in states
north and east where the population
Is much larger and the volume of
much greater"
The petition of the Rock Island at
tacks the constitutiona1ity of the
board because the state laws vest the
with, judicial, legisla-
tive and executive powers placing the
acts of the board in conflict with the
of the United States"
The $4,000 stockholders of the Santa
F'e will not be able to receive a cent
Of dividends is the statement contained
in the petition of the Santa Fe, If the
rates go into effect. 1t is sta
ted that the Santa Fe has already re-
duced its freight rates and a further
reduction would result in practical con-
fiscation.
The Missouri Pacific contends that it
Is dlTodOy operating at a loss ana InaC
the schedule proposed is entirely un-
reasonable and simply enhances the op-
Grating loss.
The Frisco brief recites that the
schedule forces the railroads of Kan
sas to make joint through rates with
each other compelling them to enter
into contract obligations without their
consent. That the rates were determin-
ed arbitrarily and not after a hearing
and investigation and that no bonafide
had been filed.
Another reason cited for the injunc-
tion is that the state is attempting to
impair its contract with the railroads
made at the time when the railroads
first commenced construction within
the borders of Kansas at which time
the state agreed to protect the property
Of the railroads, that the impairment
of the contract made at that time
comes in the future to protect the rail-
roads from loss and conf1scation by
placing into effect sweeping freight rate
When the board of railroad commits
sioners last fall put an order into effect
for a two cent passenger fare in Kan
sas suits similar to the above were
filed in the United States circuit court
praying for an Injunction. The state
Of Kansas later entered a demurrer but
the hearing on the demurrer and the
petition has not yet been had. Attor-
neys for the railroads stated today that
the hearing would probably be delayed
until the outcome of the litigation of
the same character in adjoining states
had been had.