The San Francisco call., 1896-10-25
LOCAL FARES ON
OAKLAND TRAINS
Supreme Court Has Been
Asked to Grant a
Rehearing.
Mr.. Buswell Not Satisfied With
the Courts Recent De-
cision.
QUOTES THE ACT OF 1861.
Alleges That the Position of the Court
Turns Steam Railroad Into
Streetcar Line.
QUOTES THE ACT OF 1861.

e. F. Busweu is not satisfied with the
decision of the Supreme Court in reference
to the charging of fares by the Southern
Pacific Company on the local trains in
Oakland. The Supreme Court decided on
the 9th inst. in favor of the railroad COM
pany. MIR. Buswell lost no time in getting
in a petition for rehearing. This was
filed in the Supreme Court yesterday.
Mr.. Buswell, through his attorneys, calls
attention to some facts in the case which,
in his opinion. justify him in asking that
the Supreme Court shall reconsider its de-
cision. The petition in ouening quotes
part of the language of the opinion handed
down by the court as follows:
',To forbid the defendant company from
carrying passengers from one point to an
other in the city of Oakland for con-
sideration is not the equivalent of the
declaration that the company must carry
all passengers between these points with
out consid ration"
The petition says that while this was
quite true in the abstract and might apply
in this instance if the defendant did not
have public duty to perform by virtue OF
its very existence irrespective OF any de-
mand, Two parties were interested, the
public and the railroad company. The
latter might take public or private prop
erty for its use and charge for carriage
unless it bad voluntarily given up that
right or exchanged it for something else.
The reason was that the railroad was
pu blic use. Take away the obligation to
carry passengers and the company would
have no right to accept or occupy public
or private property or franchise or to
exist at all.
The Southern Pacific Company volun-
tarily renounced the right to charge by
exchanging it for valuable franchise. 70
illustrate the claim the petition quoted
that part OF the act OF May 20, 1861, which
was as follows:
Nor shall any railroad company who may
avail themselves OF the provisions OF THIS sec
ton ever use their road for the purpose OF car
rving passengers for consideration from one
point to another in the same city.
The railroad company ayailed itself of
these provisions, and as 1T was by the act
of 1861 forbidden TO carry passengers from
one ONT to another in the same city for
consideration it was not necessary to i'm
pose the duty of carriage to affirmatively
make declaration to that end. The duty
was already imposed, and was seli-ex-
isrent. The franchise, or right OF way,
was given in exchange.
Further on the petition alleges that
athe provision in the section means just
what it says-that is, that no railroad
company shall ever procure franchise
under this section for steam railroad
and then degenerate it into streetcar
line."
1t was also alleged that the decision of
the Supreme Court would destroy compe-
tition .'But the court would construe
this section to cut off competition between
common carriers of passengers and give
one monopoly thereof" The fact was
set up also that when the act OF 1861 was
passed there were no street railways in
Oakland. "And we particularly call the
learned courts attention to the set that
the construction given would prevent the
people OF the city (Oakland) from riding
at all on defendants said line, though
ready and willing to pay therefor"
Another point in the petition was as fol-
lows: ''The rights of the public are never