The San Francisco call., 1895-12-02
FEDERAL INTERVENTION.


ern Pacific Company against the State
Board of Railroad Commissioners to re-
strain that body from proceeding with the
regulation of freight rates within the State
of California. The purpose of this inter
yention is precisely the same as that OF
the original bill, and the curious spectacle
is presented OF the great United States
Government volunteering to range itself
alongside the powerful and wealthy
Southern Pacific Company in the courts
of the former to aid the effort of the latter
to evade or overthrow the laws of State.
A cursory glance at this proceeding
gives sufficient cause for comment, but
close study of the principles upon which
the Federal authorities base the right OF
intervention affords ample reason for
alarm. If the claim which is here asserted
shall find judicial favor then there is an
end to the sovereign right of States to con-
troll their own internal affairs so far, at
least, as the regulation ofrailway schedules
is concerned.
Before proceeding with an analysis OF
the complaint in intervention, let 1t be
distinctly borne i'll mind that the Railroad
Commission has in no way attempted to
regulate or affect interstate commerce, but
has assumed to deal only with freight
which has its origin in destination in
transit within the limits of the State. Re-
membering this important fact, let US
submit the verbose complaint of the inter-
venor to such an analysis as will extract
from it the precise basis for this interven
ton. 1t will be found that much
of the original bill of the Southern
Pacific Company is repeated in this later
document with a similarity of style
strongly suggestive of the same workman
ship.
The especial claims of the Governments
right to intervene are two. 1t is asserted
as the first reason why California is power
less to deal with local freight rates over
that portion of the Central Pacific Rail-
road within its borders, that in the year
1862 the Central Pacific Railroad Company
made a contract with the United States
Government, which is embodied in various
acts of Congress ard by which the said
railroad company conceded and the Fed
eral Government assumed the sole right to
regulate rates upon its line of road. 1t is
therefore asserted that the State of Califor-
MIA has no such right of regulation Of its
own internal traffic as, by its constitu-
ton, the Railroad Commission was en-
powered TO exercise.
The mere statement of this claim on the
part of the Federal authorities is sufficient
to show how preposterous it is and how
utterly destructive its successful assertion
would be of the rightful sovereignty of the
State. The outrageous nature OF this pre-
tense is more clearly seen by considering
the second reason upon which this act Of
intervention is sought to be upheld. 1t
. is further set forth at great length that
the contractual relations created between
the Central Pacific Company and the
United States Government by the act
of Congress of 1862 and the several
subsequent acts amendatory thereof, was
such that the railroad agreed to give the
Government a share of It's net earnings,
amounting to 10 per cent thereof, to be
applied to the liquidation of its debt; and
that any interference on the part of the
State of California with those earnings
would result in the failure of the railroad
to keep its contract and of the Govern
ment to be repaid its loan. 1t is therefore
asserted by that sort of bargain between
fornia has been deprived of its power to
protect its own people from the extortions
of the Central Pacific Railroad Company
practiced within its own boundaries.
1t is easy to see 10 what conclusions
these asserted principles must lead. If it
be true that by the simple device OF a con-
tract between railroad company and the
Federal Government the right OF a State
to the regulation OF transportation rates
within its own borders can be affected in
any way, then there is an end at once to
State railway regulation. There is also
more than that, for the same principle
would destroy the right of the State to
sovereignty over its own affairs in other
directions as well.
Dearly as the people love the Union and
reverence its visible forms they are not yet
ready to yield up their right to local self
government nor to submit to the merging
OF their States in the general body by any
such extinction of the wise limitations
upon the powers of State and Nation which
the Federal constitution aims to preserve,
but which the principle asserted as the
basis OF this Intervention would surely
destroy.
There are other grounds put forward as
reasons why the United States has volun-
teered its aid to the Southern Pacific Com
pany in this litigation. They are identical,
however, with those already asserted in
the original bill, and being so, they afford
no adequate excuse for this proceeding.
If the Southern Pacific Company was SO
poor, so wretchedly officered or so feebly
equipped with legal talent as to make it ap-
pear probable that its side of this case would
suffer in the sufficency OF its presentation,
there might be some reason for this inter
vention. But such is not the case, and if
it were we venture the prediction that the
officials to whose care is intrasted the
present administration of the affairs Of
the Federal Government would hardly
have furnished US with the present in
stance OF their willing haste to intervene.