The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-05
ABOLISH THE COMMISSION.

There is yet time for the Legislature be-
| fore it adjourns to adopt constitutional
amendment for submission to the people
abolishing the Railroad Commission.
| There is no longer any excuse for its ex-
| istence. 1t has been tried and found want
ing. The practical experience of fifteen
years has fully confirmed the prediction,
made when that clause of the new consti-
tuition was under consideration, that the
commission would be rather in the interest
of the railroads than of the people. En-
dowed by constitutional provision with
ample powers to regulate rates and enforce
| its mandates, it has signallv failed to use
its powers for the benefit of the people.
Each successive election has blasted the
hope of relief. One commission can hardly
be said to have been better or worse than
another because all have been alike use
less, or worse than useless.
Whether or not wholesale railway regu-
| lation by commission is possible is not ger
name to this issue. 1t may be conceived
| that a commission composed of honest
men, thoroughly acquainted with railroad
matters, and endowed with required
powers, might be able to regulate trans
portation in a way that would be just to
the railroads and beneficial to the public.
Such commission we have never secured,
and there is no probability that we ever
will under present methods. Whatever
else may be done the first thing necessary
is to break up the present arrangement by
a constitutional amendment.
The only argument worth n moments
notice that has been brought forward in
favor of retaining the commission is that
its abolition would throw the whole detail
of railroad regulation upon the Legisla-
ture. Undoubtedly that would result in a
biennial crop of cinch-bills, and an in
creased activity of the railroad lobby at
Sacramento, but there is no necessity for
any such result. The constitution LAYS
down broad lines for the control of railroad
corporations. The fundamental law and
the courts can protect the public from
imposition better, at least, than it has
been done by the commission.
But beyond this the people have their
remedy in their own hands. The exist
ence of the Railroad Commission and de-
pendenee thereon for railroad regulation
has been largely responsible for the failure
to apply that remedy. All that is wanted
is that the railroad should furnish trans
portation from point to point on equal
terms to all applicants and at the lowest
rates that will pay operating expenses and
a reasonable profit on the actual invest
ment. Can any law be framed or commits
sion constituted which will do that as we'll
as competing line?
Perhaps the best proof of this, if any be
needed is in the experience of the
operation of the interstate commerce
law in connection with traffic between
competing points. There has never
been any difficulty about keeping rates
down in such cases. The trouble has
been to prevent infraction Of the law
by making rates higher between non-com-
peting way points than between COM
peting terminals. Even where two or
more railroad systems combine the COM
petitive principle is ever present and active
in influencing the terms of combination.
We are now about entering upon an era
OF railroad building and operation by the
people and for the people. The organiza-
ton of the new valley road will insure its
maintenance as competing line. So far
as it goes there will be no trouble about
regulating the rates of the Southern Pacific.
The same method of regulation should be
extended throughout the State. 1t will be
so extended if the people will make up
their minds to help themselves instead of
relying upon a commission which has
brought them nothing but disappointment.
Pass the amendment abolishing the COM
mission through the Legislature and by
the time it can be submitted to the people
and become the law we will be on the high
road TO regulation of fares and freights by
the natural and indefeasible law of COM
Detition