Farmers vs. the Railroads: The $3-a-Ton Fight in Olympia

RAILROAD RATE BILL. Arguments Before Joint Committee of the Legislature. TURNER SPEAKS FOR FARMERS. Burleigh Says Railroads Are Not Paying Expenses Now. If the Bill Passes Rates Would Still Be Profitable, and Wages of Employes Must Be Reduced.

Olympia, Feb. 15.—Special.—The Turner railroad rate bill won little favor when the three attorneys who appeared before the joint committee of the legislature today had completed their arguments on the subject. Judge Turner, representing the grain growers of Washington, gave it public support, but Attorneys Burleigh and Cotton gave it a worse drenching.

Turner argued that it was necessary to the life of the grain growers. His opponents claimed that it meant the destruction of the farmer and the railroad as well, and that if adopted it would be so unequal in its scale as to require a still lower cut for all of the shorter hauls in the state, there being three different $3 rates in it.

The bill provides a maximum rate for hauling grains in the state. It is a graded scale of rates, a change being made each 100 miles, but provides that the maximum rate in the state shall not exceed $3 per ton.

Judge Turner, the defender of the measure, was particularly eloquent and secured the closest attention. He showed why rates should be reduced to enable the wheat growers to continue in the work. A long haul from the grain fields of Eastern Washington to the Sound gave the railroads a rate of 3-4 of a cent per ton per mile; short hauls increased this rate. He exhibited tariff sheets showing that many articles, like oils, scrap iron, bar steel, harrow teeth, alum, asbestos and canned goods, brought for the haul from Chicago to Portland for 1-4 cent to over 1-3 cent per mile per ton. The eastbound tariff on wheat was less than 45-100 of a cent per ton per mile, and on barley and malt from Portland to Chicago it was 1-2 cent per ton per mile.

He admitted that there was an advantage on the long over the short hauls, but he thought a difference of 1-4 to 1-3 cent per ton per mile was sufficient.

Judge Turner said the railroads had not been dealing fairly with the agricultural interests of the state, and it was the duty of the legislature to see that they were fair in the future. The bill, he said, had been drawn carefully, and the rate was believed to be reasonable. It was on the traffic that would bear it. Farmers must have this or cease to till the soil. Even if the rate paid no more than the cost of carriage, the cost of the labor and the fuel, he thought it should be allowed when the product would stand no more. If this bill were passed it meant from 5 to 6 cents more per bushel for the farmer, and even then there would be no profit in raising this class of agricultural products. He charged that the financial condition of the railroads was due to reckless extravagance. Regarding the legal aspects of the case, he said three things had been established by the courts: first, railroads could charge only reasonable rates for transporting goods over their lines; second, the legislature could fix rates, which the companies must comply with; third, when the legislature fixes rates which raise a question whether they are reasonable or unreasonable, the courts could examine into them and determine.

Andrew F. Burleigh of Seattle, representing the Northern Pacific railroad, replied. He said it had been admitted that even if this bill were passed wheat raising would not be profitable to the producer. In fact it was not a question of making wheat-raising profitable in the state of Washington, but a question of dividing the loss with the transportation companies. He asked the committee to look into the transportation interests of the state. He admitted that there were many very low rates in the state, but it could not be demonstrated that any road made a dollar of profit on that business. Competitive water rates were necessary on articles that could be brought by ships, in order to get other traffic. This caused the inland cities to complain of discrimination, and there was probably cause for it, but it was not in the choice of the transportation companies.

Burleigh looked into Northern Pacific finances a little. Throwing aside the common stock, there was a funded debt alone of $131,000,000, on which interest had to be paid. It may have been extravagance, but it was not the fault of the man who had put his money into the road, and he had the same right to consideration as the man who is about to put his money into wheat. The company paid taxes amounting to $156,000 a year. On the main and branch lines maintained in the state the total income in the last fiscal year was $1,679,170, and the loss in operating was $560,000. "So," he said, "the railroads are feeling as much distress as the farmers in any state." Nearly 4,000 people were employed by the railroads in the state, and about 15,000 people were dependent on the road for support. A big reduction in the earning ability of the road meant one thing—a cutting off of the wages of the employed. "It is for you to determine," he said, "what degree of suffering from reducing wheat rates you want to put on the working-men employed by the railroads."

W. W. Cotton of Portland, representing the O. R. & N. Co., said all the rates quoted by Judge Turner were water competition rates and were ordered by the commerce commission. All the other rates were higher and there was not a just comparison. Under rates fixed in the Stuart bill, the passenger rate proposed, 3 cents, was unjust, and he gave excellent statements of the difference in passenger incomes here and in the East.