Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-05-05
SUNDAY. MAY 5. 1889.
An Interesting Question.

An Interesting Question.
In a recent issue, the Times contained
an article purporting to be by Los An
peles lawyer, and sharply criticizing the
decision of Judge Brewer, OF Iowa, Tor
declaring that schedule of freights and
fares. which an Iowa railroad company
was ordered to adopt by the State Rail
road Commission, was illegal because it
did not provide sufficient means for the
railroad to pay Cd operating expenses
and repairs, which included salaries !;
{2) interest on bonds issued; ~ dlvl-
dend on stocks.
The immediate cause OF the Sharply
critical article in the Times, as get forth
by the article itself, was that the Spring
Valley Water Company, of San Francisco,
had brought suit against the Board OF
Supervisors of San Francisco to enIoln
them from putting into effect an oroi-
nance fixing water rates.
The Times article sets up the claim
that a court has no right to 60 behind
the action of commission appointed to
fix the rates of public service, and that
to do so "will create Anarchists, Social
lists and illegal organizations which seek
to destroy our free institutions"
If the Times had not stated that the
author of this claim was a lawyer, we
should have suspected that Dennis kear-
ney had left San Francisco to become
a contributor to the Los Angeles press,
and had begun his work by pItting
into print some fragments of thes delect-
able doctrine he used to prssss,c IN the
San Francisco sand lots years Ago, till
the people got tired of his nonsense and
suppressed him.
The suit of the Spring Valley Water
Company of San Francisco is OF special
importance to this portion OF the State,
as its determination will have great in
fuence in retarding or encouraging the
irrigation enterprises that are OF 80 much
consequence to large tracts of land which
could not be cultivated proftably with
out an artificial water supply, and it is,
therefore, very surprising to see a Los
Angeles newspaper throwing open its
columns to an attack of this character on
Judge who did no more than decide that
a company engaged in public service
could not be forced to supply the public
for less than the cost of the service and a
reasonable profit.
If the article in question means any
thing, it means ttat unless railroad and
water commissioners are allowed to fix
rates at airy figure they please, regard
less of the cost of the service, a stale OF
anarchy will prevail.
1t would be impossible to conceive OF
any con dition of anarchy more dangerous
than licensing any body to dispose OF the
property of others unrestrained by any
consideration save its own will and pleas
uie, or, it may be, spite. Such power
is greater than the whole power of the
Uuited States Government, from the
President, Congress and the United
States Supreme Court, down to the most
humble peace officer. All the powers Of
all these officers combined do not suffice
to take from any man SO much as the
value of one cent without due process OF
law and due compensation, yet the writer
of the Times article declares that to with.
hold the power Of arbitrary confiscation
from a railroad commission or water
commission is to create anarchy and
socialism.
Such doctrine is monstrous, and it is
hard to understand how any person who
wishes to be considered sane could have
the hardihood to advance it.
No reasonable person denies the right
of the government, whether national,
State, or local, to regulate the charges of
a public service and to protect the public
from extortion and discrimination, but
such regulation must be based on some
thing more tangible than the mere pleas
ure of commission.
The case of the Spring Valley Water
Company is a peculiarly apt illustration
of this point. Under the constitutional
provision empowering the Boards of
Supervisors of the various counties to FIX
water rates, they are forced to permit the
collection of such rates as will allow "a
re asonable profit" to the company per-
forming the service. Ia its complaint
the Spring Valley Water Company AYERS
that the rate fixed by the Supervisors
does not allow them reasonable profit,
nor any profit at all, but, on the contrary,
If put into force, would reduce the in
come below the amount of necessary ex-
nansa and make them do business at q
loss. Whether this complaint is true or
not il for the Court to determine by
hearing evidence. If the Supervisors
can show that the rate they fixed will
allow the company a reasonable profit, it
should stand, and if the company can
show them it would allow them no
profit. or worse still, cause them loss, |