The Rich Hill tribune. (Rich Hill, Mo.) 1903-1911, 1908-09-24

moro than / would have thought q right
TO license the gambler or tho burglar 90
levy tribute upon the people BY plying
their a~vocauona. n ! am not badly mia-
taken ! am IN THE particular at least
ln entire accord with the great majority
" the neonlo uf the State. AZ all events.
] VIII continue 10 LONG az I am in public
oficc % act upon the theory that what the
people want and what my oath o. ONCE
requires 10 nghtlng against and not come
pr0mlsiug with lawieHancaa.
This antitrust litigation. 20 which an
undue prominence has been given. has In
reality constituted but a small part Of
the work ~ my office. In che conduct OF
and IN the securing u testimony 20 sus-
tain these cases, ] have had M assistance
except that which was furnished BY my
REGULAR assistants,
THE RAILROAD RATE LITIGATION.
The litigation over the Maxim Freight
Rate Laws OF 1905 and 1907, and the two
cent passenger rate law OF 1907, with the
eighteen railroads Of the state. has been
a much greater and more lahorious under
taking and. In fact, has been the largest
and most dificult piece % legislation In
the history OF the State. II has been nee
essary Tor the attorneys for the State TO
fully 6cQuaint themselves with the meth
DDS and system OF railroad construction
and operation, the method In which the
railroad Mates are fixed and established.
the methods and details Of railroad ac-
counting; lr short. with every phase OF
the railroad business from the standpoint
Of operation. as well aa from the stand
point OF litigation. The expense OF expert
accountants Who have spent months In the
examination OF the books and accounts OF
the railroad companies. has been consid-
cradle, but I believe n has been money
well spent This work has enabled the
people Of Missouri as well as the people
% other States, FOR the first time. to
.EmnN fhn truth IA IN thu rnn UOmWhNNmrEu
OF railroad freight and passenger rates
IL has disclosed TO the people Of this State
the enormous tribute that they have by
lnaoton permitted the railroads 70 levy
II has shown. Tor Instance. that the Bur
lnEton Railroad Company makes a net
proht of $1,000 each year for every mile
OF road that it has in the State Of Mis-
souri,. while Il makes an average OF $500
a year for each mile on It's entire system.
that though Il has but II per cent o. It's
mileage In the State OF Missouri. that II
per cent produces over % per cent % It's
ist In the case OF all the roads OF the
State. II ls probable that every road In
the State receives n much larger revenue
for every ton 81 freight that Il hauls one
mile IN the State than Il receives for
every ton Of freight that Il hauls one mile
In Interstate traf1c. This evidence has
also shown that the people Of Missouri
pay the railroad companies freight rates
HHHHAN 50 ~ ~ ~ AAAH LAANNLN HNHMAA III
their neiEnhors Of lows and Illinois. For
instance. the Missouri farmer has 10 pay
$50 to have a carload OF wheat hauled 100
miles 70 market While IN Iowa and ILL.,
nois IL costs the farmers Of those States
but $40 for the same car the same dis
lance: while tire stock ratsers IN Missouri
have TO pay the railroads g24 a car 10
have their cattle hauled 100 miles 20 the
s~tockyards al Kansas City. St. Louis and
- Joseph. IN Illinois the farmers OF that
State can ave their stock carried 20 the
Chi ago gtockyBrds. the same distance.
FOR $50 q car that In Missouri the rail-
dealer $50 70 have a carload Of agricul-
tural implements hauled 100 miles. while
In Iowa Il would cost for the same car.
the same distance. SIS; that while u
would cost the Missouri householder. &C.
cording 10 the rates established In this
state $50 70 get n car o. lumber hauled a
d~istance Of loo miles. II would cost the
Iowa home-buildeF SIS FOR The same car
exists Ia the freight rates IN Missouri and
the freight rates "a Illinois and Iowa upon
other commodities and Tor other distances
These facts and many others important 90
the people q Missouri, have besa esvel-
opeu IN the course OF this litigation. The
testimony In these eases has dnally been
completed and is now ready 10 be submit
ted % the decision Of the United States
Circuit Court 7 cannot but view with
conndeHce the N result Of this litigation.
But Ga this litigation. as IN che anti
trust litigation already referred 20. sub
stantlai results have already been secured.
The facts developed as % the value %
railroad properties enabled the state
Buaul Of Equalization TO Increase their
assessments last ear over Gl0.0o0.0 900.
thus adding Sl75.e0o 10 the States rsye-
nues each year.
THE Two-cENT FARE FIGHT.
Further. Governor Folk IN his 81. Joseph
speech IN his present campaign for the
United States senatorship said. IN speak
lng o. this litigation;
- great deal Of testimony was taken
20 determine the fairness Of these rates.
and Hs a result Of these ~nvestiuationa into
the cost o. freight and passenger service,
the conclusion vas arrived at both By
myself and the General Assembly. that
passenger rates could De materially re-.
duced without doing any Injustice 20 ths
corporations, Believing that the passenger
business ~ the railroads justified a.. ! rec
commended the reduction o. the passenger
rate from three cents to two cents a mile. o.
With the enactment % the twn-ceul
passenger rate law In 1901. the railroads
announced that they proposed 20 enioln IL,
enforcement In the Federal Court. ne they
had two years before enioined the en-.
fnFcement o. the freight rate law % 1905
They also announced that they proposed
20 make Missouri the battle ground m
their contest against the two-cent fare.
had learned something IN The two years OF
LITIGATION I had had with the railroad com,
uanios ~ % their methods ~ legal war.
fare n ! decided % use the same meth,
oda IN hghtinE them that they had USED
m nFhting the people % Missouri I De.
ridcd not 10 Jet them select both the form
ana the forum ~ litigation. and CA a.,
day that they announced that they uduif
ask FOR an injunction IN the United State,
Court 20 restrain me from enforcing M
tN0-ceut fare law against them. I WenI
into the State courts ard sakrd Tor an 81.
junction eninining the railroad companies
from disobsyiuE this law and 7 went int,
the Ftats courts a few hours earlier thar
the railroads went into the Federal court
judge Matt w Reynolds % So. Louis. ans
Judge John q Para n Kansas CITY. ISSUED
the lnjunctious I asked Tor against M
raiirond companies, and the railroads thei
prepared their papers for an Application
TO have me adtudged guilty Of roEtemp.
% the United States Circuit Court. Thll
question was argued 0n the 6th day 81
June. 1897. before Judge Mcpherson 81 IN,
United States Circuit Court AZ Kanaa,
city, but before the decision vas rend
cred the railroads weakened On their aghf
their uinm 20 hnua me nHtoHual