Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-04-10
New Constitution.
No. VIII.

COrpOraJeQ companies. IQlS S0unu5
fair enough, and IL the power was
confined to the State taking such
property and franchises for its own
immediate and exclusive use, it
might be free from objection. But
such is not the case. 1t has long
been the p.actice-a practice, sane
toned by our statute law, and by
this new Constitution, to invoke
this sovereign right in aid Of enter
prises of q public nature carried on
by private corporations. Now what
will be the effect of this provision
in this class of cases? A railroad
company, q water or gas COM
pany, has by purchase or by con-
demning private property, ac-
quired q right of way or other prop
erty, or easement necessary for its
purpose. But, should this Cousti-
tuition be ratified, what is to pre-
vent some future company con-
demning the property, rights and
franchises of the first? Nay, what
is to prevent third company con
iemning the property and fran
chises of the second, q fourth those
Of a third, and SO on in inf,ituna.
And what must be the practical
working of such principle? Can
anyone believe that men will iu-
vest money upon security so very
uncertain and precarious?
70 many of the sections Of this
article the only objections are, that
they are either useless or utterly
practicable. Section 10, for in.
stance, is utterly useless, for the
Legislature is inhibited by the
Federal Constitution passing any
laws of the character there contem-
plated.
Section 20 provides that when a
railroad company shall have low.
cred its rates for the 'purpose of
competing with any common car
rier" it shall not raise them again
without the consent of the govern
mental authority vested with the
power to regulate freights and
fares. Did it never occur to the
members Of the Convention that
the "purpose' of the railroad com.
pany in lowering rates was a thing
utl erly incapable of being estab.
lishei by means of proof; that In
the very nature of things it can
only be inferred, and that such in.
ference may he wholly groundless
and erroneous?
Again, who are to ascertain this
"purpose2" Is its ascertainment
judicial matter, or is it to be con.
tided to the Legislature, or to the
Commission of three. which in all
railroad matters is intended to su-
percede the Legislature?
The twenty-second section pro.
vldes for a Commission of three
persons to whom it entrusts the
regulation of freights and fares. It
takes from the Legislature power
essentially and c0nfessedly legisla-
tive la character, and vests it in
Board Of what are, in other respects,
ministerial officers. In other words,
1t. to this extent, provides for an
other and distinct Legislature to
consist of the large number of
three The pretext for the creation
of this Board, and clothing 1t with
such extraordinary powers, is the
extreme difficulties which Legisla-
lures have in informing themselves
in reference to freights and fares.
Yet, when the Legislature of
1876 6, instead of passing the crude
and badly digested scheme called
the Archer bill, created Board of
three members, which should col.
lect Information and act in an ad.
visory capacity to future Legisla-
lures, some of the very gentlemen
now loudest in their support of the
present scheme could fiud no words
strong enough with which to ex-
press their disapproval.
1t may be admitted that our
Legislatures have neither the
means nor the time of acquiring
Information to enable them to Leg
islate advisedly upon the question
of freights and fares, and that n
com mission entrusted with that
sole duty is therefore desirable.
Such Board, acting in subordina-
ton, and as advisory to, the bien-
nial sessions of the Legislature,
will, l am convinced, prove a great
and salutary advance upon the ex-
isting system. Such Board eX-
lists in Massachusetts,, and it's op-
GRAFTON has proved eminently ben
ehcial. Such a Board was created
in our own State by the act of 1875,
and IL, too, l feel assured, would
have proved equally beneficial had
not its abolition been procured by
the combined efforts of the friends
and of the extreme enemies of the
railroads, who are now so clamor-
Gus for the clause in question.
There was even no very strong
reasons against creating such u
Board and making it permanent
by constitutional provision. But
why make 1t supercede the Legis.
lature? Why clothe it with such
extraordinary powers? The true
and partially avowed reason for
this is that the Legislature cannot
be trusted; that the members are
liable to be approached and cor
rupted by the railway magnates.
Admitting this to be true-and to
some extent it is true-and what
follows? If the 120 men compos-
ing our Legislature are so exposed
to corruption, what guaranty have
we that the. three composing the
railroad government shall be ex'
empt? Those three, like members
of the Legislature, are to be chosen
by direct popular vote, and what
guaranty have we that the people
will exercise their right Of choice
more wisely in the one case than
| in the other?
The section referred to, like so
many other parts of the instru.
ment, is mere expedient, framed
to meet supposed evil by substi-
tutlng the danger of a far greater
| evil. IL prOceeds upon the assump,