The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-10-12
STUPBS TO RIPLEY
Governors Reply a Defense of
His Policy.
Rate Conference Not to Assault
or Misrepresent Roads.
THAT ISSUE OF STOCK.
Asks What Was Done With 1O3
Millions.
Thinks That Company Should
Pay Higher Wages.
THAT ISSUE OF STOCK.

Governor Stubs reply to President
Ripley of the Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe, made public last night as
forecasted in the Topeka State Journal,
asks what became Of the proceeds from
sale of the S103, 000,o 600 of Santa Fe
common stock. The executive tells the
railroad president that the employees
ought to be getting more money and
that the corporation can afford to
pay it.
Governor Stubs letter to President
October 10, 1910.
Mr. E. P. Ripley. President Santa Fee
Railroad Co., Chicago, ILL.,:
My Dear Mr.. Ripley: Your valued
favor dated State Line in Colorado
October 1, was received during my alb
sence from Topeka. 1 am glad, indeed,
to receive this letter from you and I
am deeply interested in some of the
statements which you make. The in
crease of freight rates is a subject
which as vitality concerns the public
as it does the railroads. Any increase
in rates must necessarily mean in
creased cost of food, clothing, hard
ware, lumber, coal, and every neces-
sity of life. 1t is as much my duty TO
protect the interests of the public
against unnecessary advances in rates
as it is your duty to demand reason
able pay for the services rendered by
the railroad company. The living ex-
penses of every man, woman and child
will be affected if your proposed adj
vances in freight rates are permitted by
the interstate commerce commission.
The conference which l called at To-
peka to discuss this matter was COM
posed of conservative, representative,
sober-minded business men and Of
ficiaI representatives of eight of the
best and largest states in the Union
There was no disposition whatever to
assault or in any way misreprcsent the
railroads. The whole tendency and
general consensus of opinion at this
permanent settlement of the rate
question on a fair and substantial
foundation.
Physical Valuation.
In referring to the physical valuation
of railroads, you state in your letter:
"You seeks in common with others
to make this the rock upon which the
people must split with the railroads.
But what / want to know is, what
good is to be accomplished by such
valuation Nobody who knows any
thing of the country's business and nf
transportation matters believes that
capitalization has anything to do with
fixing rates That notion was long
ago exploded" cs1
Now. Mr.. Ripley. if neither the phys
zeal value of the property nor the cap
italization of q railroad has anything
w
ly state for publication upon what
basis your Santa Fe rates are fixed
VIII you also explain why the Supreme
court of the United states has rem
dered a decision in which it saws that
a public service corporation is entitled
to fair return upon fair valuation
of its property; and also state why
that same Supreme court decided that
6 per cent was a fair return upon the
actual value of the New York Gas
company's property? And it is of vital
interest on this point that this United
States Supreme court decision settled
contest that had gone on for years
between the gas users and the gas
company, during which hundreds of
thousands of dollars of gas bills and of
taxes had been held up in escrow.
Thus the decision on the point of the
valuation of the property ended long,
costly. annoying dispute and litigation,
in the only satisfactory way in which
it could be ended. VIII you also be
kind enough to explain why the rail-
road companies invariably demand
protection from the federal court upon
the charge that their property is being
confiscated by a certain proposed rate
which the railroad will not pay a fair
return? without knowing the value
of the property owned by a railroad
company and the earnings of the rail-
road company, how could any court
determine that the railroad company's
property was being cOnfiscated and
that the earnings were not remuner-
alive and satisfactory? If it is neces-
sary for the court in determining
to take into consideration the value
of the property, if you represented
the public, Mr.. Ripley. would you not
prefer to know for yourself the value
of railroad property, or would you
leave it to your opponent. the owner