The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1918-02-20

establishing rates which the receivers
should charge, it nevertheless held
that the rates actually tentatively
fixed were unjust and unreasonable
and also held that the order OF the
commission was not final and in
condition to be enforced. The court
denied the writ.
Subsequently the supreme court
wrote another opinion in the same
case. Nor did it boost the commas
sion's batting average. Lawyers may
take down their Kansas Reports ana
read State ex rel Commission VS.. Flan-
nelly Cos Kans. $3.50. This decision
was rendered upon an application OF
the commission for a writ OF man
damus requiring the Kansas Natural
receiver to render more efficient serv-
ice The court denied the writ III
held the court should not be asked to
order a public utility TO render effl-
cient service until there had been a
hearing upon the merits before the
commission and a finding that lts
service was in fact insufficient.
Here is more gloom. 1t is the case
of the Emporia Telephone company
VS.. Kansas Public Utilities Commas
sion (97 Kans. 1860 in which the SUI
preme court affirmed a decision OF the
Shawnee county district court, which
enjoined the state commission enforc-
ing certain rates against the Enporla
company In that case the Emporia
company applied to the commission
for permission to increase its rates.
The commission had dismissed the
application. given no relief and threat
ened-it was charged-to prosecute
the telephone company for not observ-
ing the existing rates.
Again. Look at the case of the
Union Pacific Railway company VS..
Public Utilities Commission COS Kans
$500. In this case the state commits
sion had undertaken to make an order
directing the railway company to con-
struct a crossing at a point where the
road ran thru the land of farmer.
The railroad company enjoined the
enforcement of the order. The SUI
preme court held the order was void
for the reason that the commission
had no jurisdiction in the premises.
In this case the commission undertook
to exercise judicial power and to en-
force an order in a judgment, a stat
utory right
More sorrow came to the commits
sion in the case of the state ex rel
Commission VS.. Santa Fe Railway
COMPANY Consult SO Kans. S31). In
the name of the state the commission
sought &C recover a penalty from the
railway company because it had regis
tered a transfer of certain stock on its
books which was held by a foreign eX-
ecItor for the reason that the inheri-
lance tax had not been paid In this
case the supreme court issued another
keep Off the grass warning to the
commission. 1t held the railway COM
pany was not liable for this penalty
Back of that point was also the con-
] sideration that it was not within the
function of the commission to enforce
a right of this kind
On Station Fight.
Nor did the commission find easy
sailing in directing the railroads to
establish stations. Refer to 101 Kans.
| 660-State ex rel VS.. Rock Island Rail
| way company. This was an action to
| compel establishment of station at
| E1wood, Kan. at point on the Mis-
souri, river. The station was ordered
that patrons of the road might pur-
chase tickets to and from this point
and thus evade the payment of the in
| terstate passenger rate. The supreme
court couldn't appreciate the program
| for lodging payment of interstate
| fares and refused to grant the writ of
mandamus sought by the commission.
| The most recent shock to the COM
mission in three years of misfortune
before the courts concerns the attempt
| to force the Missouri-Kansas Tele-
phone company to build an unneces-
sary line to Lone Elm, Anderson
county. This case is known in the
| records as State ex rel vs. Missouri &.
Kansas Telephone company. 1t was
| decided in January, this year. and does
not appear in the published supreme
| court reports. In this action. tho, the
| commission sought a writ of manda-
mus 10 compel the company to build
a line which the telephone COMPANY
| held was unnecessary since service
was provided over another line. The
utilities commission was advised by
| the court that the duplication of serv-
Ice could not lie required
| In addition to the cases in the Kan
Sas supreme court, the commission
had had rough shedding in the federal
court in the Kansas Natural Gas cases
thousands of dollars had been spent
oy the commission in expensive litiga-
| lon and prolonged hearings which
! were delayed many months Dendine
decisions After the commission had
ordered the ascent rate. the gas com
pany offered to compromise. wine ali
eases OH the record and provide an
aoequa!e stipulation that it would pro-
wac an adequate supply of gas at 80
cents The commission. excentino
Judge Foley, the minority member re-
fer. iiiiSe vi
/ That Gas Row,
SO the case went to the fedora
court winch removed all of the powe,
from the state commission, denied its
| right to jurisdiction in hearing furthe,
controversies as affecting the Kansa
Natural and established rates aIrnos1
double those offered the state in the
gas company's compromise program
NOW topeka and other towns nav 81
cents Tor little or no gas. And the
ofter OF the gas company was to sus
pend all of the expensive hearings anf
to provide a guarantee for an AIDE,
quate supply of gas at 30 cents. Added
to the extra % cents which is paid fo,
gas, Is court and commission ex
pense account of thousands of dollars
Maybe you want to look up the ga.
cases? There were three federal cour
decisions IN gas cases. All were en-
TITLED Landon VS.. Public Utilities Com
mission of Kansas. The first case i:
found in PA Fed. 1872; the second
PAP Fed. 65S; the third, 245 Fed. $50
.. And that concludes the record O.
three years of perhaps the most ex
| pensive and disastrous commission
service the state has known