The San Francisco call., 1896-04-17
Railroad Commissioners Have the
Right to Regulate Transpor-
tation Charges.
SOME OBJECTIONS ARE RAISED
Limitations on the Right of Assign.
ing a Tariff of Fees for
Carriers.

The usual galaxy of legal luminaries as
sembled yesterday in the United States
Circuit Court room to hear Attorney Hayne
continue his argument in the Southern
Pacific case. Pillsbury, venerable, pa
trlarchal, but withal wary and watchful; !;
CARRIER, genial and smiling, albeit some
times sarcastic; Herrin, suave and silent
but observant-all were on hand to witness
Haynes assaults upon the contentious
with which they had thought to fortify
themselves. His Honor Judge McKenna,
though sedate and stately. was likewise an
attentive liste ner. and disdained not oc-
casionally to grant the pleader quiet and
decorous smile as some important point
was scored or some unusually vivid gem
of word painting submitted to his approv-
ing notice.
Mr.. Hayne commenced by citing great
number OF decisions, which he considered
TO have a bearing on the case at bar. The
number of citations was so overwhelming
that the Judge at length entered gentle
protest.
II must beg your Honor to let me keep
to the order which 1 nave marked out for
myself" said Mr.. Hayne. 81 don't want
to be run off the track; and if l think it
necessary L ought to be allowed to read
and cite any number of cases in support of
my position.
Now, why should the courts intervene
when We have Railway Commission en-
dowed with the right to fix rates of
transportation?
Then" interposed Mr.. CARRIER, "you
wish to infer that the action of the Rail
~ se
That's another question" rejoined Mr..
Hayne, land when it comes up we can
give it our attention"
But what 1 want to know" persisted
Mr.. CARRIER, sis whether you conceive the
court to have no right to revise the find
ings of the Railway Commission"
II contend" answered Mr. Hayne,
that when the law has assigned the fix
ing of rates to a certain tribunal, created
for that and kindred purposes, the courts,
ordinarily speaking, are not supposed to
discharge those functions"
We'll" observed Mr.. CARRIER, "that is a
statement of your position, is it?''
II must request" said Judge McKenna,
who for some minutes had been exercising
the judicial knuckles upon his desk in
vain endeavor to stop the discussion, ''that
there be no further interruption" and Mr..
Hayne resumed the thread of his argu-
ment so often broken.
II wish" }" he continued, "to call atten-
ton to two principles; one, that when the
supreme authority confines the fixing of
rates or any other matter of public in
tereSt to one determined tribunal the
courts have, generally speaking, no right
to interfere; the other, that if that tribunal
be the Legislature or body created by
legislative enactment, then its acts, so far
as the courts are concerned, should be con-
sidered conclusive. That is to say, conclu-
sive as long as the special tribunal keeps
within the lines laid down for it by the
authority which created it,
'Why couldn't the State intervene to
reduce rates that are considered too high 2"
asked Mr.. CARRIER.
SIS that your posiuon?' asked Mr..
Hayne.
81 am not stating my position" re-
joined Mr.. CARRIER. ~ merely asked what
objection you could find to an interven-
tion on the part of the State, having for
its object the reduction of railway rates"
The Judge again interposed, and brief
conference ensued as to the power prop
erly endowed with the right to pass upon
the matter of rates and their regulation.
Bear with me now, in what l am about
to say" pleaded Mr.. Hayne; "but l want
TO ask whether your Honor can substitute
your own judgment for that of the tribu-
nal to which the supreme governing power
of the Nation has confded the matter of
adiudicating upon the fairness of railway
transportation rates. In countries where
the common law prevails the Legislature
is usually authorized to pronounce upon
the TeaSonableness of these rates and in
fact, does in many instances fix a maxi
mum rate beyond which TRANSPORTATION
companies may not go. That it seems to
me. should be the status of the matter in
this State"
Mr.. Hayne then proceeded to cite de-
cision of Chief Justice Waite in case re-
ported in lie United States Reports. to
the effect that the power of regulating
railway rates had its limitations and that
the right of limiting rates could not law
fully be used for the spoliation or prac-
tiGal conhscation of any railway or other
transportation agency. His main conten-
tion throughout the days argument was
that the courts should not enter into any
consideration of the matter of the reason
ableness of transportation rates unless it
became apparent that the rates fixed by
the Railway Commission were so unreason-
ably high as to be an imposition upon the
public, or so unreasonably low as to de-
stroy the value of the property owned and
operated by any individual or corporation
for railway or other transportation pur-
poses.
read the titles of large number of cases,
some of which had been decided in the
Supreme Court of the United States, and
which, he contended, were binding upon
the court in the present action.