The record-union., 1895-12-03

The department of justice has asked
permission to be an intervenor, as the
only method of protecting the security
upon which the Government holds a
subordinate lien. Yet this is deemed to
be treason against the sovereignty of
the State of California.
We have been told time and again
that the Government built this road;
that the money used in its construction
belonged to the people of the United
States. If this be true, then the peo-
pie of the United States have an inter
est certainly equal with the stockhold-
ers of the Central Pacific, when the
wealth producing power of the prop
erty itself is to be determined by the ac-
ton of a State commission.
Having attempted to limit its gross
income to rs per cent. of that derived
by the present rates, the Southern Pa
cific Company, lessees of the Central
Pacific, sought to protect its revenue
by enjoining further proceedings in
this direction, but the people of the
United States have more money in the
Central Pacific's line than have the
stockholders of the Central Pacific or
the Southern Pacific itself Have the
representatives of the real owner no
right to be heard in court when regu-
latfve measures, which may or may not
be confiscatory, are proposed?
We earnestly admonish our contem-
porary to think in a straight line, but
we take the liberty of giving it brief
lesson in elementary law All parties
having a beneficial interest in the de-
termination of any question before a
court, or having a contingent interest
in the judgment of that court, have a
right to intervene when a suit is pend
ing which may affect the value of the
ownership or the title to the property.
The Central Pacific Railroad Company
is under contractual obligations to pay
to the Government of the United States
a percentage of it's earnings, but the
State of California interferes between
the contracting parties, to wit, the
and declares it will so regulate rates Of
transportation that the amount of rev.
enue to be derived from operating the
railroad shall be decreased. This nee
essarily decreases the amount Of money
which the Government will receive, and
the question which the Circuit Court is
asked to review relates to the reasona-
bIeness or unreasonableness of the pro-
posed regulative measures. The Govern
ment of the United States, having
mortgage lien, is prospective owner
of this very property, for proceedings
in foreclosure may force it to buy the
whole outfit. 1t intervenes for the pur-
pose of protecting that ownership and
that contingent interest in the revenues
OF the road to be affected.
This very proper proceeding is char
acterized by our contemporary as
blow at State sovereignty and an asser-
ton of despotic supremacy on the part
of the Federal Government. Our con-
temporary should have consulted
freshman in the Hastings Law School
before committing itself to this ridic-
ulous and absurd idea.
Beyond all this, our contemporary is
forever estopped from asking the Gov
eminent to become the absolute owner
of the Central Pacific. That ownership
would eliminate State regulation, State
control and State taxation If interven-
ton to protect the security upon which
the holder of a mortgage-be it the Gov
eminent or an individual depends, is
a blow at State sovereignty, Govern
ment ownership of these roads would
snuff out all exercise Of that
sovereignty. There is nothing in the
Constitution or laws of the State pro-
hibiting a San Francisco journal from
being absurd, but decent respect for
the opinions of mankind should prevent
it from occupying such grotesque and
ridiculous attitudes of inconsistency.