The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-19
Claim Made That the Reduced
Rates Are Not I'm
fair.
INTERESTING FIGURES QUOTED
An Intimation That the Railroad Com
pany IS Not Acting in Good
Faith.


State from enforcing the reductions an
nounced in rates on grain, Commissioners
La Rue and Stanton, through Attorney
General Fitzgerald, yesterday filed atida-
Wits taking issue with the railroads Off
cials.
1t is asserted by Commissioner La Rue
that the complaint and the affidavits of
J. C. Stubs, c. T. Smurr, W. G. Curtis
and George T. KIink, filed on behalf of the
railroad company in connection with the
complaint, are general in scope, and do
not state such facts as will enable the
court to determine whether or not the
threatened reductions would be unfair, I'M
Just or unreasonable. Each affidavit of
the railroad officials is then taken up in
detail. OF that of J. c. Stubs, the affi-
davit of Chairman La Rue says:
In so far as it relates TO any of the allega-
tons contained in the bill of complaint of the
complainant in said action, it purports to be
based exclusively on the familiarity OF the
said J. C. Stubs with the operation of said
complainants so-called Pacific system of
railroads, as a system and not otherwise;
and that it is confirmation or veritcatlon of
that portion only OF said bill OF complaint
which relates to the fixed charges, cost and
expenses Of operation, and receipts and ex-
penditures in the operation for the year 1894,
the said so-caled Pacific system" OF railroads
OF the complainant in said action an
tirety; that the remaining portion OF said
affidavit of the said ]. c. Stubs in said action
is speculative and problematical, and purports
10 he based upon his alleged belief as to the
effect in The future OF the alleged proposed
and threatened" reduction, or any reduction
of rates of freight charges or of passenger
rates and charges upon the said so-called
"Pacifc system; and upon his belief as to
the probable future business likely in his
rITlfn RI ha hyrS Qid aif anil nf
railroads, as an entirety, and is not based upon
any estima te of or belief as to past, present or
future earnings, revenues, fixed charges,
operating expenses or receipts or expendi-
lures upon all, or either or any of the re-
spective lines of railroad operated by the COM
plainant in said action exclusively within the
State of California, and exclusively within the
Jurisdiction of the Board of Railroad Com
missioners OF the State of California; and tina
no reference is made in said affidavit OF the
said j. c. Stubs TO either, or ali of the lines of
railroad operated by the complainant, except
part Of, and connected with, and operated
as palt OF the so-ealled f'Pacifc system" OF
railroads OF complainant in said action
entirety.
C. F. Smurr's affidavit is referred to in
the same manner, with the additional
charge that such portion of it as refers to
the character of the evidence produced
before the Railroad Commission and to the
action of the commission in adopting the
resolution making reductions in grain
rates are false. Similar exceptions are
taken to the affidavits of w. g. Curtis and
George T. Klink.
Commissioner La Rue's affidavit then
alleges:
That it appears from the allegations of the
bill of complaint that the so-called "Pacifc
system of railroads is a combination, under
series OF alleged leases, made at different times
upon different conditions and for different
terms, of nine independent corporations into
one alleged unified system, operated under one
management interdependent each upon the
other for any profits or dividends from the
operations of the railroads owned by them, and
each bearing its pro rata of the losses OF all.
1t is then shown that 306O.56 out of the
4667.24 miles comprising the Pacific sys-
TEN" are located exclusively within the
State of California and within the jurisdic-
ton of the board.
Commissioner La Rue further contends:
That the Central Pacific Railroad Company,
Southern Pacific Railroad Company OF Califor-
mia, California Pacific Railroad Company,
Northern Railway Company. Northern Califor-
mia Railway Company and South Pacific Coast
Railway Company are separate and indepen-
dent corporations and must be treated and
dealt with such by the Board of Railroad
Commissioners and that it is the duty OF said
board in fixing rates OF charges for the trans
portatlon OF freight or passengers over the
lines of railroad owned by said companies to
fix and adopt such rates OF charges for each OF
said ompanies a separate and independent
corporation, and without regard to their being
forming part of the so-caled ''Pacifc sys-
tenn" of railroads operated under alleged
leases by complainant, but solely with regard
to the circumstances and conditions
surrounding and affecting the traffic
upon the lines OF railroad owned by
each of said companies as q separate
and independent cooperation; and no portion
of the earnings of the railroads owned by either
OF said corporations may or can be shared with
any other corporation, company or person in
this State or otherwise, save only when freight
or passengers are continuously transported
over the railroads of tN or more of said COM
panies, in which event it is the duty of said
board to fix just, fair and reasonable rate OF
charges for such continuous carriage, and to
apportion pro rata of the rate so fixed to each
company respectively participating in such
continuous carriage in such ratio as by the
said board shall be deemed just, fair and rea-
sonable; and in no event and under no cir
cumstances can any OF the earnings OF COM
pany doing the carrying be apportioned to or
shared with any corporation, company or per-
son not doing the carrying.
A little further along the affidavit SAYS:
Affiant is informed and believes and the his
tory OF the complainant corporation in this
State, with which he is familiar, confirms him
in such belief, and he therefore AYERS that in
many cases the rate of transportation is fixed
at about the actual cost of such transpor ia
ton at points where it is the interest and OBJ
ject of complainant to crush out opposi-
lion and destroy the property OF competing
common carriers; and that large expendf-
lures of money have been made which were
T.
cial conditions existing at the present
time, or in the near future, but that such
expenditures were made and large prop
critics created for the purpose of DESTROYING
competition and destroying the property inter-
ests of others who enter into competition as
common carriers, and the discriminating rates
are made in favor of persons and places which
approximate the cost of transportation with
the view to serve the ends and objects of this
complainant in the creation OF a MONOPOLY
and the losses entailed by such reduction of
rates and discrimination and creation of prop
erty unjustiy and unreasonably fixed upon
charges OF freghts and rates in other portions
of the State that the revenue of this complain
ant corporation may be maintained without
regard TO the true interests OF commerce and
the rights of the public, or the business or rea-
sonableness of the rates of charges for the
transportation of freight within the State of
California.
A defense is then made for the reason
ableness of the s per cent reduction on
grain rates and the proposed reductions on
other freight rates ON the ground that
decision was made only after full evidence
had been heard. The affiant denies that
he was elected on pledge to reduce
frelghts on any fixed basis.
1t is pointed out that if an Injunction is
granted the complainant pending the
termination of the present inquiry a gross
injustice will be done all grain shippers,