The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-08
RATES LARGELY ILLEGAL,
An Important Opinion Rem
dered by the Attorney
General.
Long and Short Haul Clause Of the
Constitution Officially
Interpreted.

| A question of vital interest to the mer-
chants and manufacturers of this City
and the people at large in the State of
California was before the Railroad Com
mission yesterday incidental to the inves-
tigation that had been going on into the
affairs of:the Southern Pacific Company.
| In the course of the examination and
comparison of freight rates on the coast
division line, which runs to and some dis
lance south of San Luis Obispo from this
City, it was discovered that less rate was
charged from San Francisco to points be-
yond San Luis Obispo than was charged to
San Luis Obispo and points this side OF it.
The rate to San Luis Obispo is So per ton
and to points on the road beyond but 50 25.
Commissioner La Rue at the time called
the attention of Attorney Martin to the
| facts, but the latter held that this was due
| to water competition to San Luis Obispo
and was not in contravention of the State
constitutional provision on the subject of
railroad discrimination. But Commits
| sioner La Rue was not satisfied in mind
and referred the matter to Attorney-Gen-
eral Fitzgerald, whose opinion was received
yesterday and read before the commission.
The opinion is quite a lengthy and an
able one. In the course of it the Attorney
General says:
In reply to your question, Can railroad
company upon line of road within this State
lawfully charge a lower rate for transporting
| the same class of freight from a given point
to q certein destination than from an
other and nearer point on the same line
to the same destination, and can it justify the
lower rate for the more distant point on the
ground, that at said point it comes into con-
tact with competing steamship line and is
thereby forced to the lower rate to secure the
traffic, desire to state that Section 81 of Ar
ticle XII of the constitution, provides that:
mo discrimination A., in charges or facilities
road or other transportation company be
tween place places or or persons pssr or in
of the same classes of freight or passengers
within this State, or coming from or going to
any other State"
The language is plain and emphatic. It
charges of facilities between places or persons.
There are no limitations, or conditions,
or qualifications. If, therefore, it is es-
transportation company does discriminate in
charges or facilities between places or persons
the law is violated without regard to any rea-
son or excuse which the railroad or transporta-
ton company may offer for such discrimina-
ton.
After discussing common and statute
laws and decisions bearing on the ques-
ton the Attorney-General says:
am, therefore, of the opinion that rates of
the character mentioned by you would be q
discrimination in charges between the two
places affected by such rates and would, there
fore, come within the inhibition of section 81,
Article XII of the Constitution, and that q
competing line at the more distant point would
not justify such discrimination.
In reply to questions, General Freight
Agent Smurr said yesterday at the meet
ing that if the law was enforced, according
to the opinion OF Attorney-General Fitz-
gerald, the company would have to aban-
don large portion of its business to points
where competition with water-carriers is
met.
IA most important result" said Mr.
Smurr, would be the fact that it would
take away from US the ability to tranship
back from San Francisco to interior points
at the present rates, and this would prob
ably interfere with the present business re-
lations between the San Francisco whole
salers and the interior merchants. The
latter would be more likely than heretofore
to go East for their supplies.
| "It would mean that the railroad would
| have to go out of competitive business, as
| far as water carriers are concerned, or take
such share as is not SO actively COMPETE
| tive
| Just what action the Railroad Commits
| sion will take in the matter its members
have not yet determined.