The record-union., 1893-02-14

:
! the Act of 1861, which required the COM
/ pany to make a report of its accounts
/ to the Secretary of State. 1t was not
until 1876, he declared, that 1.-THE railroad
/ gave US one OF its Dead Sea apples
/ by permitting an Act to 60 through
/ the Legislature providing for 8
Board OF Railroad Commissioners. After
this, he said, the company disobeyed the
mandates Of that commission, and
thought the Supreme Court showed that
/ body to be illegal. Then the Constitu-
tional Convention imposed the commits
sion upon the people again. No other
I State, declared Barry, had such Rail-
road Commission, but had stringent rail-
way laws compelling companies TO fur
nish proper crossings, keep their tracks
in good condition, build bridges, and to
operate branch lines after purchasing
them. ETC., instead OF destroying
them. California was the only State
in the Union that had no such laws.
| For fourteen years." he said, I'VE have
had something that no other State has,
and we are tired OF it, and want it done
away with" He denied that the desire
to have the commission removed was
/ the result of any senseless clamor or
| street-corner talk, but wanted the COM
mittee to think that it was the demand
OF the people," Delaware, and one or
two other States, he said, had had COM
missions, but had abolished them. Ten
states fix the rates OF railroads through
their Legislatures, subject to the decis-
ions of the courts.
''Do you think the Legislature could
fix rates different to those laid down in
your California distance tariff included
in this amendment" asked Chairman
Earl.
"Yes, lsir," replied Colonel Barry.
The Chairman then read portions of
the amendment, showing that under it
the Legislature was bound down to GER
tain rates-that is, the rates provided
Were the maximum figures, and the Leg
islature is not permitted to go above
them. Mr.. Earl wanted to know if the
Colonel thoughtssuch a law should become
part of the Constitution.
Barry argued that the classification
could be made ''flexible' so that the Leg
islature could have little more to say
about rates.
Not under this amendment as it
reads now" said Mr.. Earl. 1T estab-
fishes maximum rate, and is bar
against the Legislature using its discre-
ton"
HAS any other State got such law
as that?" asked attorney Martin.
II think sou replied Barry doubtfully.
81 guess not" said Mr.. Martin. You'll
find that not a State has anything of the
kind"
Colonel Barry said that he had not
| looked the matter up very thoroughly,
and therefore could not discuss it. 1t
was not the main subject before the COM
mittee anyhow, he said. The main ques-
ton was whether or not the Railroad
| Commissioners should be removed.
Resuming, Barry declared that the cap
italiZation of a railroad company should
have nothing to do with the rates it
charges.
But" interrupted Chairman Earl
| A'thQ Intprstatn Com suif
says capitalization should be the basis of
all rate computation"
II don't so understand" said the
Colonel, somewhat surprised.
wv ell, that's the case" said Mr.. Earl
l read decision to that effect very re-
Gently"
Mr.. Barry thought the decision must
have meant that the rates could be based
on the cost of property. But Mr.. Earl
said he was wrong there, too. The COM
mission referred to the capital stock dis
tinctly, and laid down the rule that when
States attempt to regulate rates they
must adopt the same basis.
Regarding the small roads, which are
to be crushed, if the amendment becomes
| a law, Colonel Barry said, that according
to Leeds statement similar roads in the
] East managed to keep alive under classi-
hcations. But even if they can't" he
declared, dramatically, sit would be
these small roads so that we can face the
real antagonist, the Southern Pacific
| Company"
In attempting to reply to the disproval
of Leeds statement to the effect that the
tariff proposed in the amendment for
California was the same as that in opera
ton in Kansas, the Colonel said he was
not an expert on tariff minute and could
not dispute the evidence. But he argued
that classification was classification, ="
and could not be so very bad il some
roads in the East get along under them.
The argument had been advanced, he
said, that the abolition of the Railroad
Commission would Brighten soH COM
petition. \ ct, he said, the State of Iowa
was gridironed with railroads, had no
commission, and competitive railroad
building was still going on.
When Colonel Barry finished Chair
man Earl asked if there were any more
takers for the amendment. Senator Ges-
ford stepped forward and asked permits
sion to say something about the state
ment that the proposed tariff would hurt
the wine business in his county-Napa
He had copy of an article clipped from
the Napa Register to this effect and pro-
ceeded to denounce that journal and the
statement. He argued that the proposed
tariff would reduce the freight rate on
wine fully $40 per car. In the course of
his remarks he confessed that he knew
nothing whatever about railroad rates or
railroading in any shape himself, but had
introduced the proposed amendment at
the request OF the Traffic Association.
Senator Seawen asked some questions
that bothered Gesford considerably. He
wanted to know if he would indorse the
distance tariff as embodied in the amend
ment. and the Napa man lodged the
issue by saying that what was wanted
was the abolition of the Railroad Com
mission.
But" insisted Mr.. Seawell, "here is
your proposed amendment carrying this
distance traiff with it,
Gesford declared blandly that it was a
"war measure. as Lincoln would say"
and he didn't care much how it looked.
What was wanted was the immediate re-
moval of the Commissioners, and then
the proposed schedule would serve dur
ing the ''interim." This interim, he ex-
planned, would be until the Legislature
could meet again and adjust any bad
points that may have cropped up in the
schedule.
That's all right" said Senator Sea-
well, but would you as lawyer put
this distance tariff upon our Constitu-
tion?'
''Wer, now" faltered Gesford. 'you
are asking me very pointed question.
''But you are the author of this amend
ment,' broke in the committeeman.
mo, Pm the introducer of it-not the
author. l don't care how it looks in the
Constitution; it's the effect that we want"
Gesford was asked once more if he
would as a lawyer indorse putting such
a measure as the proposed tariff into the
l. Constitution. His reply was that he
didn't suppose that Thomas Jefferson,
Daniel Webster or Calhoun would have
Endorsed it in its present shape, and then
he went off on another speech about the
"effect and not the looks"