The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-12
Intervenor's Bill to Be Made to
Meet the Courts Objec.
ton.
TO OPERATE AS AN AFFIDAVIT.
Agreement Entered Into by Counsel for
All Three Sides and a Stipula.
1ation Filed.

To meet United States Circuit Judge
McKenna's objection to the original bill
of Intervention filed on behalf of the Gov
eminent in the Southern Pacific's suit
against the State Railroad Commission,
United States District Attorney Foote in
tends to file an amended BILL
The new bill will also have the effect OF
sworn statement, for stipulation by the
attorneys of all three sides of the contro-
versy was filed yesterday to give the
amended bill the character of an affidavit.
Just when the new bill is to be filed Mr..
Foote said yesterday he did not know. nor
could he particulariZe as to what would be
the amendments. sit will only be a few
lines" he observed, 'to meet the objection
of the court"
He was asked if any figures would be
given. He replied that he did not think
there would.
The point of objection indicated by
Judge McKenna was that the Federal
Government does not show in its bill any
detriment arising to it from the regulation
OF rates. 1t is this that Mr.. Foote pro-
poses to make more clear in an explicit
statement to the effect that detriment will
arise to the Governments interests as
creditor of the Central Pacific.
To Mr.. Foote the argument of the coun-
sci for the Railroad Com mission and the
courts oral decision have both been won
derful aids. He went into the case to
inquire, he says, and he has been in
formed. Speaking of it yesterday, he re-
marked:
Why, all the counsel for the other side had
to do was to simply demur to my bill. Instead
OF that they fought it and in doing gave me
6, great deal of information by the statements
they made in their argument. All now have
to do is to amend my bill as to the very de.
fects they pointed out. The right of the Gov
eminent as creditor is established.
Now, want to explain the matter OF the
sinking fund so that it can be easily under
stood, for great deal of confusion seems to
have arisen. and can't see why there should
be any confusion. This sinking fund is pro-
vided for under sections 3, and 10 of the
Thurman act (act OF May z, 1879. The provi-
sion is that % per cent of the net earnings OF
the Central Pacific is to be placed in the
United States treasury as a trust fund for all
the bondholders and creditors, including the
Government. These sections explain the
whole matter and show the Government to be
a trustee.
To cut off the revenues of the Central Pacific
by reducing rates is in effect to prevent the
accumulation of this fund, and thus the most
valuable part of the Governments security to
wit: the earnings of this road. is to be de-
stroved, and this reduction of the earning
capacity of the road in turn destroys the value
OF the road as security
The question was asked, docs the Gov
eminent look to the Central Pacific or to
it's lessee. the Southern Pacific, for this
Is per cent? Is the % per cent to come
out of the rental paid by the Southern
Pacific to the Central Pacific for the use of
the road, or from what source is it to be
taken2"
Mr.. Foote's reply was not direct 1t
amounted to this:
AS have said, % per cent is to come out of
the net earnings of the Central Pacific for this
sinking fund. Our business is to see that the
law is complied with
From the statement made by the railroad
81 zoe. 900 behind. If that is so, how is any
20 per cent ever to be paid if the rates of the
road are to be reduced? We ought to get
about S549 900 yearly.
The fact of the matter is Congress under the
law is given the right to regulate rates. All
we want is 10 have the power of Congress in
this respect judicially determined. If the
the matter of regulating rates will rest with
that legislative body.
Mr.. Foote's attention was called to the
alleged diversion of traffic by the Southern
Pacific from the Central Pacific in direct
opposition to the Governments interests
as creditor in view of the Thurman act
but that was matter, he said, as TO which
he could not have taken any iritiatory &C.
tlon, and if it was fact there would be a
chance TO have it brought out in the pres
ent controversy.
Both this diversion of traffic and the
Southern Pac6c's lease of the Central Pa
citic were questions, he said, which would