The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-03-24
A SUCCESSOR TO rue ALTA.

The Chronicles contention that Mr.. Rea
was perfectly right in refusing to discuss
the subject of wheat freights until some one
lad made formal complaint that they in
jured him individually is not at all srrpris-
iGg, for the logic of events is necessarily
driving oar contemporary into the defense
of the railroad. Wien Mr. de Young an
nOunced his intention of running for Sena-
tor it was obvious that he would have to get
the support of Fourth and Townsend; and
that he could not get unless he volunteered
to assume the duties which the demise OF
the Alta left unfulflled. There was no es-
cape from the dilemma in which he placed
hmseif-either be had TO follow THE CALI.
in asserting the rights Of the people of Cali
+ rnia. in which case he would be sure of
the hostility Of the railroad. and could not
possibly become Senator; or he had to take
uD the cause Of the railroad, In which case
he might receive the support of the railroad
He seems to have adopted the latter alterna-
live Whether the choice was WISE whether
the people Of California are at this moment
minded to let the railroad choose more Sena-
tors for them. is question for him TO con-
sjder 1t is not, just now, our business.
Regarding De Young as the spokesman
for the railroad, THE CALL will observe
that he misapprehends the object of the law
creating the Railroad Commission when he
says that that body cannot take cOgnizance
Of representations which do not take the
specific form Of complaints of individual
hardships. 1t was, on the contrary, the
very object of the law to relieve shippers
from the necessity Of filing complaints of
specific wrongs. and SO mourning the hos
tllity OF powerful corporation. The idea
Of the trainers Of the law was to create a
body which should stand between the peo-
pie and the railroads, should inquire for
Itself into the justice Of freight schedules,
aud when it found them unjust should,
Of its own motion, call the offending rail-
read TO account. When Mr.. Rea demands
from Mr. Leeds specific charges and specif-
cations, he shrks his duty. and throws upon
shippers function which he is paid $4,000
year to fulfil. And when a newspaper
says that his position ls just right and cam
not be assailed, it only shows that it is not
as adroit as it ought to be.
The unsoundness of Mr. Rea's position
and the sophistry of defending him are best
dSeerned by supp0sing test case. Mr..
Leeds has shown to the Railroad Commits
sion that the Southern Pacific charges 70
cents more Tor carrying a ton OF wheat 80
miles than the Kansas roads do Mr.. Rea
contends that the commission cannot act in
the matter until some one comes before
them with bills for freight ana affidayits.
and makes out that he had been personally
wronged by the California freight schedule.
But who could swear to such a complaint?
A farmer in ColuSa or Tehama Is really
wroDged by tie excessive charges exacted
by the railroad for carrying his wheat to
Port Costa; but he has no grievance which
a court could take cognizance of. The
lower charge with which the Kansas roads
are content does not take money out of his
pocket That ia mere expert testimony 60
ing to show the value of railroad service
under analogous circumstances. But If
wbeat-grower in Coiusa should bring suit
against the railroad for overcharges, and
should have no other evidence in support of
his complaint than the Kansas schedule,
the commission, acting rs court, would
have TO decide that he had made out no
case of specific damage, and would throw
him out of court. The commission was Gre
ated to do that which courts cannot do, to
wit. to determine whether railroad Charges
are iust-or unjust, and In coming TO con-
clusion on that question the appearance OF
a plaintiff In the case is unnecessary iffeie-
vsnt and impairment