The record-union., 1893-03-11

riage of passengers. And when pressed
upon the subject he said substantially
that he cared little about the matter of
passenger rates, and when asked if he did
not know that such rates produced one
third of the income of the carrier, he said
no, 1t produced about 30 per cent. 1t
was then proposed to amend the amend
ment by increasing the maximum rate
1or passenger service to three cents a
mile. This man Leeds, therefore, it will
be seen, the avowed author of the meas
ure as presented to the committee, had,
with set purpose and deliberation, placed
IN this amendment a rate of two cents a
mile, which he knew was much less than
the prevailing rate elsewhere in the
United States, and when forced to admit
1t gave the weak excuse that it was
small matter whether he tampered with
the passenger rates or not. The mask
was torn off-the communist was dis
closed, and the advocate of legislative
spoliation to private property appeared.
80 much for passenger rates. The COM
mittee inquired of the author of the Cali
fornia distance tariff the reasons that
prompted him to prepare it. He sub
stantlally stated that like distance tariff
prevailed in Kansas, and caused the COM
mittee to believe that the California dis
tance tariff was identical with that pre-
vailing in Kansas.
GESFORD WAS WRONG.
Indeed, the distinguished Senator
from Napa, who introduced this amend
ment when interrogated at one of the last
nights of the meeting of the committee.
stated that the California distance tariff
was identical with the Kansas distance
tariff, and his informant must have been
the same that gave the committee to be-
lleve that fact. But when comparison was
made of the California distance tariff
with the Kansas distance tariff the fact
was disclosed that the tariffs We're very
different indeed. The Kansas distance
tariff gives in cents per number
pounds, five miles and under, 13 cents.
The California distance tariff, 81 cents.
Think of it Thirteen cents in Kansas
and 81 cents in California. The Kansas
distance tariff for ten miles and over five
gives rate of 10 cents, but the California
distance tariff for the same service gives
only Il cents. The Kansas distance tariff
for fifteen miles and over ten gives IS
cents, whereas the California distance
tariff gives but cents. The Kansas dis
tance tariff for twenty miles and over
fifteen gives 90 cents and the California
distance tariff but r. The mask was
again torn off and there stood disclosed
the advocate of legislative spoliation of
private property.
Now, then, sir, Kansas is a level coun-
try. There is not tunnel in the State.
not mountain range to be passed. The
traffic there is denser than in California;
the price of coal there is but one-ffth the
price of coal in California; every few sta
tlons in Kansas there is a coal mine with
its village making freight for the rail-
roads. But what do you do when you
start from San Francisco? When you go
north you go through the canyon of the
Sacramento and pass the Siskiyou Noun
tains. If you go east you cross the
mighty Sierras. If you go south you en-
counter the coast range and Tehachapi.
There is no direction that you can 60
from San Francisco without going over
grades and through tunnels and around
curves. Is it just and right that the
Kansas distance tariff should apply to
California rates existing under substan-
TALLY dissimilar conditions to those of
Kansas? 1t would be a manifest in
justice. How much greater would be
the injustice, how much more cruel
would be the legislative invasion and de-
strnction OF the property rights of trans
portation companies were there TO be ap-
piled to them the California distance tar
i'll, requiring, as it does, lower rates to be
charged than the Kansas distance tariff?
And yet, Notwithstanding that this great
wrong and injustice was disclosed to the
proponents of this measure, they have
offered no amendment to it. They still
urge its adoption, and l understand the
distinguished Senator from Napa now
advocates its adoption. do not wish to
do him an injustice. have great respect
for his judgment and for his sincerity of
purpose, and L wish to set him right. if |
have nisstated his position, by now ask
ing him if he wishes to be understood as
advocating the adoption OF this California
distance tariff into the Constitution, de-
structive as it is ?''
Senator Gesford-Yes. did advocate it.
Continuing, Mr.. Earl said: THAT while
he accorded to every man the right and
liberty of his opinion, and was free to
admit that men;imight differ upon the
policy of repeating the provisions of the
Constitution creating the Board of Rail-
road Commissioners, and referring again
the regulation of freights and fares to the
Legislature, yet he could not believe that
honest and patriotic citizens could find
any justification of the California dis
tance tariff, and he was forced to believe
that those who affected to advocate its
adoption into the Constitution were
simply playing the part of demagogues,
To his mind, however, the pecuniary in
terests disastrously affected by this
amendment, vast as they are, shrink into
insigniticance in comparison with the still
greater interest involving the Justice, the
honor, and the permanent well-being of
the State. We have at length reached the
stage in our national and constitutional
history when the supreme test of our in
stitutions is being made, and that is
whether the guarantees of private prop
erty found IN our Constitutions are illu-
sorry, or whether they yet remain firm
and etfectual. AT no time is it filter to
be reminded that the effective power of
law is not only the work, but the test of a
civilized commonwealth, and that law is.
in its nature contrary TO such forces as
are violent and casual. The founders of
our Republic fully realized these facts. IL
was among the
ETERNAL LESSONS OF HISTORY.
"They well knew that the mass of the
neople are often moved by sunnosed i'm