The San Francisco call., 1896-03-11

the right of the respondents to controyert
any new matter IL troduced by the petl-
tioners.
G. F. Smurr's affidavit concerning hori-
zontal reductions was objected to by Mr..
Hayne and ruled out as purely argumenta-
tive.
Smurr's affidavit concerning grain
freight rates undertook to deny that the
Southern Pacific had a railroad monopoly
in the State; asserted that the feeling
against it had been created by demagogues
and irresponsible and calumnious news
pers to advance their own interests.
II object to this affidavit by What s-his
he evidently does not know the dignity
of an oath. These proceedings are before
court OF justice and not campaign OF
calumny and vituperation."
Judge McKenna thought some parts OF
the affidavit should be cut out before ad-
mitted to the record.
Mr.. Herrin then undertook to Introduce
the printed testimony taken before the
Railroad COMMISSIONS large voluT.e-
by way of showing that the board had
liked the rates arbitrarily.
This was objected to by Mr.. Hayne,
he saying: 1.-The railroad has hitherto
held that this testimony was erroneous,
and now they seek to prove their case
by its Introduction"
~
were introduced to show that the crops OF
1895 were less than those of 1894.
The afternoon session began with the
Introduction of atfidavlts as to assessed
valuation of property, and the first in
that line, that of JabeZ S. Swan, created a
long discussion as to its admlsslbility. AS
a member of the State Board of EqualiZa-
ton he declared himself liable 10 state
that the assessed value of property gener-
ally, including real estate in the different
counties in this State, ranges from 80 to 60
per cent of the commercial value of such
property, the general rule being that the
assessed value is less than so per cent of
the commercial value of such property"
Judge Hayne objected to this siren
uously on the ground that this was not
rebuttal; that what other property was
assessed at was not at issue. The law re-
quired that the property be assessed at its
full value. 1t was no excuse for the break
ing of the law in this instance that the
law was broken generally any more than it
would be to excuse thief from specific
theft by urging that people generally were
given to stealing.
Judge CARRIER answered this point in a
short address TO the court. He had had a
case where this very issue was saised be-
fore the State Supreme Court.
The court admitted the affidavit.
Other afIidavitS were introduced show
ing specific assessments, among them that
on the property of Mr.. La Rue. This Mr..
Hayne objected to as being a slur on Mr..
La Rue.
at is only to show that Mr.. La Rue is
treated in the same way that the railroad
is" said Herrin.
Other affidavits presented the assess
ments of all the morning newspapers,
which Mr.. Hayne again objected to as be-
ing mere vindictivenesS on the part of the
railroad company.
Another lot of affidavits of members of
the Republican convention that nomi-
mated Mr.. La Rue for his position as Rail
road Commissioner were presented going
to disprove the assertion that he had re-
fused to be bound by the plank in the
platform declaring for 25 per cent re-
duction of freight rates.
Mr.. Herrin having concluded Judge
Hayne presented the affidavit of George E..
Williams, to the effect that he (WilliamS),
at time that he was presiding over the
convention, advised La Rue not to be
bound by the plank and he (La Rue) said
he would not.
The report of the proceedings before
the Railroad Committee at Washington
was introduced also in which G. p. Hun
tington, in answer to Senator Morgan, de-
| clared that the improvements or better
ments on the road all are charged to the
current expenses fund, while Mr.. Herrin
undertook to make it appear here that
| they were extra expenses and had not
been considered by the Railroad Commits
| sion.
The arguments will be begun this
morning.