The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-04-09
livestock Rate Case Taken I'm
der Amusement by Court.
Charge That P. o. C. Took Snap
Judgment Against Roads.
HELM ASKED QUICK ACTION
Railroads File Five Objections
ITO Rate Reduction.
Commission Says Emergency
Faces Stockmen of State.

Claims that the public utilities COM
mission took snap judgment and did
not give railroads proper notice of
proposed changes in emergency live
stock rates were made before the SUI
preme court in. the commissions APP
pIieation for writ of n1andanaus
The court took the commissions
hurry-up request under advisement.
Urged Immediate Action.
Because of the emergency facing
stoekmen who desire to move cattle to
eastern pastures, Judge A. e. Helm
for the public utilities commission
urged an immediate order from the
court. The writ was asked in an eff
fort to. block interference by the rail-
roads in enforcement of the commits
sion's order for a 80 per cent reduc-
ton in livestock rates from western
feed lots to eastern pastures The
rate applied to intrastate shipments.
A temporary writ was granted earlier
in the week and the hearing Friday
afternoon came up on application for
a permanent order.
Five Points by Railroads.
Robert w. Blair of the Union Pa
cific. A. "A. Scott of the Santa FNe and
Luther Burns of the Rock Island pre-
scented the case for the railroads.
Their opposition to the commissions
order was based ON the claim that due
notice had not been given of a hear
! ing and that the commissions claim
of discrimination was not consistent.
| Five points were advanced by the
| railroads in opposing the rate reduc-
| ton. Against all of them the state
| commission urged that an emergency
| faced the stockmen and that immedi-
ate relief should be provided thru re-
| duced freight rates.
Objections urged By the carriers in
cluded:
| THAT the alternative writ of man
damus allowed by the supreme court
gives the railroads till April II to file
their answer. and that the application
tfor temporary incidental order can
not be acted on prior to that date.
| Must Have 80 Days Notice.
2.-That the notice of the commission
April L for the hearing April 4 wa.
erroneous because under sections 8s41
and SS42 of the general statutes oil
N915. the railroads must be- given 4 81
days notice of a hearing to change
rates, whereas in the pending case
| they We're given notice of only thres
days.
| 3.-That the order of April 4, reduc
| ing the rates was erroneous because
section 8345 of the general statutes O.
| 1915, provides that 'all orders, regu
lations. practices. rates. etc, fixed b!
the public utilities commission. shall
be in force and effect on and after 81
4
whereas the rates made by the com
mission April a were ordered to be
come effective in six days. < H. .s5z
4-That the claim of the commission
that the hearing April was not al
original proceeding. but continuation
of a hearing October 9, 1920, should
not be considered because if that wer,
true no rate question would ever b.
settled. and the commission could cal
up the railroads by telephone, and oil
fifteen minutes noticeg make a sup
Elemental order changing an entir
system of rates fe
5.-That the public utilities commits
ton is not consistent in it's rate con
tention for the reason that last fal
the eommisSion-then known as tn
industrial court-made a schedule o
lintrastate rates lower than the inter
state rates fixed by the interstat
commerce commission, rejecting tn
plea.-of the railroads for equal rates
and over their objection that the in
dustrial courts action caused a dis
termination as between intrastate an
Interstate rates. Now the commission
has shifted its position, and wants in
terstate and intrastate rates made~th
same.