Mexico Missouri message. (Mexico, Audrain County, Mo.) 1899-1918, 1915-04-01
AN EDITORIAL.

Oh0 COhAAChuoDAo thihb INC AObAp-
lature refused to do and that was
to raise railroad rates in Missouri.
The Message does not understand
the raving claims of the st. Louis
Republic and a few other newspapers
that rate impositions are driving the
railroads into bankruptcy.
The following editorial from the
Kirksville Morning News puts the
matter about as we have seen it
all along:
The following statement regarding
the railroad rate situation in Missouri
and Attorney General Barker's eff
fort to get back the excess charges
made by them DUNG the life of the
injunction on the present rate law,
will be found of more than passing
interest:
The Missouri Maximum Rate
statutes and the resulting Rate Ca
SEES" are but one of set of four,
namely: Arkansas, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, and Oklahoma.
The four involved substantially
the same state of facts and the same
questions of law; they were all de-
cided about the same time and upon
the same grounds, /. e. the power and
right of the state to prescribe reason
able freight and passenger rates.
The same railroads operate in the
different states as follows:
Railroad Operating in
Ark. Min. Mo. Okla.
A. Il. & S. F. Yes Yes
c. B. G. @. Yes Yes
c. RI &P. Yes Yes Yes Yes
G. & A. Yes
Frisco Yes Yes Yes
G. N. Yes
N. P. Yes ."
Mo. Pacific Yes
st. L. 1. M. C S. Yes Yes Yes
X. City Southern Yes Yes Yes
Wabash Yes
Do not operate.
In each of the states the state
made rates were suspended by in
junction or supersedeas proceedings,
so that during the tendency of the
litigation the carriers collected
charges in excess of those fixed by
the state.
At the conclusion of the cases, the
carriers in Minnesota arranged to re-
fund all the overcharges together
with interest) and they have to date
repaid to shippers and passengers
over two millions of dollors; in Okla
homa and Arkansas arrangements
have been made by the roads for the
refunds; but in Missouri the rail-
roads have refused and still refuse
to even consider refunding the mon
ey they have wrongfully taken and
to which they have no title.
The G. B. & Q. r. R. is part of the
G. N. N. P. and Burlington system.
In Minnesota, the G. B. & @. as well
as the G. N. and N. P, promptly
refunded the overcharges, but in
Missouri, and Missouri alone, they
refuse to do so.
The G. R. 1. & P. paid in Mime
sofa, and paid or are paying in Ar
kansas and Oklahoma, in Missouri
and Missouri alone they refuse.
The Mo. Pac.-Iron Mountain sys-
tenn are paying in Arkansas and Ok
lahoma; in Missouri, and Missouri
alone they refuse. And so on.
We repeat, to the shippers of all
states, save Missouri, the railroads
met their obligations and refunded
or are refunding the overcharges;
but refuse to do so to the people
of Missouri.
Aside from any legal technical
les is that fair to the shippers in
Missouri?
Paying their just liabilities in 9TH
er states andrefusing to do so in Mis-
souri,, is that the Square deal" of
which the railroads are SO fond OF
talking?
With what peculiar legal or NOR
al right are the railroads vested
that they may appropriate to them
selves the money of the shippers and
and passengers of Missouri? What
right, Mr.. Shipper, has the railroad
to your money? And why do they
keep your money while at the same
time refunding in all the other
states? Is that treating you fairly?
Are you going to let them get away
with it?
And then when Attorney General
Barker brings a suit upon behalf OF
all shippers and passengers in the
state to recover these oVerchargei
which the railroads refuse to pay
to them, the railroad sympathizel
objects and rams about studied ef
forts on the part of the state officials