The morning call., 1894-07-07
STATEMENT FROM SUTRO.
The PhiIanthropist Plainly Indicates
the Responsibility.

the Responsibility.
The following telegram was dispatched
yesterday by Adolph Sutr0:
| To Grocer Cleveland, President of the
| United States, Washington, d. c.: The
people of California, especially fruit-farmers,
! are severely suffering for want of tTansporta-
tion. Cannot trains be compelled to run and
carry mails, leaving Pullman cars of?
ADOLPH SUTRO.
Mr.. SutrO has also requested The CALL
to publish the accom- panying statement:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE RAILROAD COMPANIES.
In the excitement which has prevailed
| through the State for a week the rights of the
| people have been ignored. They have been
| IN crested spectators OF controversy between
| the railroad companies ana their employees, but
| nave given 20 thought to their own rights,
| though they are the greatest sufferers. Believ-
| ing that there must be some remedy for the
| wrongs being inflicted upon the merchants and
other cilizens by the delay of the mails and the
stoppage of all freight and passenger traffic, The
writer applied TO legal gentleman for informa-
tion, and was promptly answered that the
remedy is plain, adequate and, under the exist
| ing circumstances ought TO be speedy.
Let committee from the Produce Exchange.
Board of Trade or any private citizen whose
business requires him 10 ship or receive his
merchandise or produc by rail call on the At
torney- General of the stare and ask him il The
people have a right to make demand on the
railroad companies operate thrir trains, and
he will certainly reply that they have; and il
| they refuse he can and will apply to the Su-
preme Court of the State for a mtndamus TO
| compel them to do so and that court Will take
| jurisdic ion and act.
The Attorney General could no doubt pre-.
sent tn case in his application so as to avoid
IS Co thnf hn
companies are neglecting and refusing to Oper-
ate their trains for the sole reason that their
| employees will not allow the companies to use
! Pullman cars. In support OF the application
| the officers of the American Railway Union
Will make and furnish him with affidavts hat
the membrs of that organization are willing
and ready TO go to work and operate all trains.
| freight and passenger, if they are not called
upon or required to operate trains with Pull
| m u cars as part thereof.
| The railroad companies are quasi public cor
porattons, and they owe a duty 10 the State
which is paramount to all private interests.
| Pullman cars are 10 part OF a railroad; they are
mere conveniences, and if this quarrel were be-
| tween Pullman and the railroad companies,
and they should refuse 10 haul or use his cars,
he could not compel them to do so, although ne
might have a right to sue them for breach OF
| contract.
The jurisdiction of the court 10 compel rail-
| road companies by mandamus TO operate their
| roads is so clear that every lawyer is familiar
with the question: for the subject is discussed
and the jurisdiction sustained in all the text
| books. and is supported by numerous American
! and English decisions.
The Supreme Court OF the United States sus.
Iained and enforced ii in the case of the Rail-
road Company vs. Hall, 81 U. S., p. 343. The
! Supreme Court of New York in the case OF
| People VS.. New York Central, % Hun, 543
issued the writ. though the company tried to
| excuse itself on the plea that Its operatives
were on a strike ana IL could not operate its
| trains. MorawetZ. in his work on Private
! Corporations" discusses the question In Sec
| tions 1115, 1116. 1117, 1892 and 1133. High,
on extraordinary legal remedies, In section
| BIT. Mr.. Rover. in his work on railroads,
volume l, page 572, says: by nOn-user Of its
road or a part thereof after completion, the
| company lays itself liable 10 be proceeded
| against by mandamus, quo warranto. 10 annuI
Its charter. or possibly by Indictment"
Aud The Supreme Court of the United States,
! In the case of Chicago and n. W. R. R. VS.. Crane,
decided that where a proceeding by mandamus
| against State corporation and Its lessee a
| foreign corporation, TO compel the road TO Ie-
! store and operate its road as originally con-
structed, the lessee CORPORATION had no right TO
have The case removed from the State court into
the United States Circuit Court. The tenth
section OF article MI of the constitution of the
| State of California declares that: "The Legis-
| lature shall not pass any laws permitting the
leasing or alienation of any franchise so as to
| relleVe the franchise or property held thereun-
der from the liabilities OF the lessor or grantor,
lessee or grantee, contracted or incurred IN The
| operation, use or enjoyment OF such FRANCHISE,
! or any OF ITS privileges"
| No doubt upon a proper application the AT.