Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-05-30
RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS.
Session Held in San Francisco Yeaterds

kAiLhoAD COMMISSIONERS.
Session Held In San Francisco Yesterday
Especial Dispatch to the RkcoRD-UsIoal
San Francisco, May 29sh.-The Board
OF Railroad Commissioners met this morning
-sH the members present and Mr.. Carpenter
presiding.
a communication was received from w.
FL. Robinson, of Suisun, calling the attention
OF the Board to complaint formerly made
and the statements in which weie pronounced
false by General Manager Towne. Mr.. Rob.
inson presented schedule of fares and
freights. which Mr.. Towne also pro-
nounced to be without foundation. He
asks that the question of veracity between
himself, Mr.. Towne and the signers OF the
complaint be decided by an investigation, and
for that purpose requests that the General
Manager be subpensed TO appear before the
Board and requested to testify.
a letter addressed TO Governor Stonemau,
aud by hirn cent TO the Commission with the
Endorsement, Respectfully referred to the
Railroad Commission, hoping they will tsks
immediate action and investigate the case,
and compel the railroad, if in fault. to do
right was read. The letter ia dated Poway,
San Diego county, and complains of
costs charged on goods sent from Buffalo, N
Y, to Cotton, which had been prepaid, and
upon which further charges are claimed to be
CD urged from Los Angeles to Colt9n.
Mr. Foote explained that the cause for the
complaint grew out of the fact that Los An
geles was o terminal point, and thought the
question should receive due consideration of
the Commission. The letter was ordered filed.
A communication was received from Geo.
Thistleton aud others, residing at Ocean
View, the Industrial School and surround
ings, 10 reply to the answer of Superintend-
ent Bassett of the Northern Division Of the
Southern Pacific. Several comparisons are
instituted claiming to show that the rate of
twenty-five cents per ride is extnrtionate and
that the Communication rate Of 81 is excessive
when laid alongside the same to Berkeley,
which is So per month. The distance to
Berkeley is elevsn miles, and that to Ocean
View three and half miles. The petitioners
| complain that Alameda ought not to be given
twenty-six trains day and Ocean View only
four. They complain that this Is discrimi-
nation, and that the Commission ought to
take cognizance of It,
Mr.. Foote presented his opinion in the Gaze
of Harrison VS.. the Railroad Company. It
set forth the facts conceded by the parties to
the action, ard reviewed the arguments of
General Barnes. He held that the special
contracts could be accepted or rejected by the
railroad company, according to their oSn
terms, and therefore they came under the
| head of Determinations. The special con-
tract system having tendency to hamper
trade, he thought the Board ought to use all
| its power to break it up. It was conceded
that the Commission had power to regulate
| the California roads in this respect, but
counsel for the railroad had claimed that the
(, Board had n power to prevent the negotia-
| ton OF special contracts. He concluded by
expressing the opinion that an order ought to
| be served on the Central Pacific to dscon-
tinue the making CT special contracts, and
| the power of the Board exerted to enforce it,
in case the railroad was guilty of violations.
| Collaterally he thought Richards & Harrison
could recover from the railroad the amount
| of past Determinations.
| Mr. Carpenter presented his opinion, which
| was quite as voluminous as that of Mr.. Foote.
| It also presented a synopsis of the testimony
and review of the arguments of counsel, to-
gether with the laws end decisions guiding
the action of the Board. 1t congratulated
the Board on the fact that the testimony OF
witnesses had been listened to impartially,
| the plaintiff and defendant allowed full lati.
! tude, and that the decision of the Board was
not to be influenced by newspaper attacks on
| the Commission. or newspaper opinions, writ
ten without hearing of the law and facts.
The opinion held that the defendant COM
planned of, 10 the matter of special contracts,
was out of tas jurisdiction of the Board. De-
States were quoted to affirm this view. The
special contracts were negotiated by cor
psration out of the State, viz: the Union
| Pacific, and were executed in q State and
| Territory by the Central Pacific, before they
came under the purview of the Board. Stress
was laid on the fact, &c matter OF evidence,
| that although the special contracts were used
| By nearly every large shipper in San Fran
| cisco, none had asked to be relieved from
I -. uo--s,, Es,o1I--
| found that plaintiffs, rot having shown that
there was any rival to profit by their exclu-
sion from special contracts. they had failed to
prove determinations next. they had failed
to make out Gaze of extortion under the
| law, even admitting the allegations of the
complaint to be true; and, therefore, il is or-
dered that the petition Of the plaintiff be de-
MED.
Mr.. Humphreys asked that he be allowed
TO take the two opinions and sign whichever
met his views- His request was granted.
MFR. Foote asked Carpenter if he had
not changed his opinion as to special con-
tracts.
MIR. Carpenter answered no.
Mr.. Foote then drew out his scrap-book
and read from q letter written by the Presi-
dent Of the Board before election, in which he
condemned the special contract system.
Mr.. Carpenter replied that he still held
that view, but he based his opinion wholly
upon the question Of jurisdiction, and had
tried to make the point clear in his opinion.
Mr.. Foote-Then I understand that in
some cases, where the jurisdiction was not in
question, you would hold the view expressed
in your letter?
Mr.. Carpenter-Yes, cir. That is the
point, and you know it very well.
Mr.. Foote disclaimed any intention TO
question the motives of the President, but
wanted to understand the point clearly.