The record-union., 1896-05-16
IN dire DISTRESS.
The Railroad Commissioners and Their
Attorneys.
Attorney Haynes Concession Creates
CONSERVATION Among
Their Forces.

The San Francisco Chronicle" in its
report of the proceedings in the case OF
the Southern Pacific Company against
the Railroad Commissioners before
Judge McKenna, on Wednesday said
Judge CARRIER yesterday ousted the
counsel representing the Board OF Rail
road Commissioners from one of its
most confidently held positions in the
rate case now on hearing before Judge
Mckenna. This was the position all
along maintained by the Attorney
General and his associates that the -
per cent reduction resolution was s.
inchoate and entirely predatory as to
afford not even a shadow of a basis for
the interference of a court of equity.
This position CARRIER so boldly at
tackled that Judge Hayne, representing
the Attorney General, agreed to have
the Board of Railroad Commissioners
rescind the resolution. This, it is
claimed by representatives OF the rail
road, is in itself the achievement OF
great part of what was sought by the
present litigation. $
Then CARRIER attacked the % per cent
resolution, and so completely turned
the flank of the Attorney Generals po-
sition that Hayne surrendered that
point at once and agreed to have the
Railroad Commissioners rescnd it.
CARRIER took up the resolution in
which the Commissioners resolved that
all rates except grain rates should be
reduced - per cent, and directed the
making up of a schedule on that basis
The language was such, he argued, as
denoted completed action on their part;
nothing remained to be done but the
clerical function of preparing a sched-
ule, but the lines upon which the sched-
ule was to be prepared were so clearly
and strictly defined as to admit of no
discretion. The board had acted in this
matter to such an extent as to threaten
the destruction of the property of the
complainant, and entitle it to equitable
relief. Then it was that Hayne an
nounced that the resolution should be
rescinded.
Yesterday the Chronicle gave the
following account of the proceedings in
the case on Thursday:
The Board of Railroad Commissioners
will not rescind the % per cent. reso-
luton
Attorney Haynes assurance to the
court Wednesday afternoon that it could
easily be done does not meet the ap-
proval either of the Commissioners or
of the Attorney General. The latter
came into court the first thing yester-
day morning to tell Judge Mex emma 50.
But Attorney Haynes easy way of
saying what the Board of Railroad
Commissioners could and would do,
and the publication by the "Chronicle"
of what he said, made a decided stir in
the counsel of the defense Railroad
Commissioner LaRue was telegraphed
for at once from his Sacramento home.
He came down yesterday morning and
was in consultation with the Attorney
General and his associate counsel and
Commissioner Stanton for half an hour
before court convened
When the court convened Judge Hayne
asked the court to understand that if
anything he had said could be con-
strued as an agreement on his part that
the % per cent. resolution would be re-
scinded he wanted to withdraw it, 1t
was not necessary TO rescind it. he as
sured the court, in the view which the
defense had always taken of it, namely,
that it was a mere declaration of future
intention, without force or effect in
itself, and, therefore, not of any value
whatever in this case. He insisted that
the inference that he had agreed to the
resembling of the resolution was not
warranted by what ne said Judge Nc
Kenna suggested that the stenograph-
er's notes would most satisfactorily
-,
the official reporter was directed to
transcribe that part of his notes.
According to the stenographer's notes
on the particular point of resembling,
this is what was said: CARRIER had been
arguing that the % per cent resolution
was a finality, completed action on the
part Of the commissioners. Counsel
says he viii advise them not to enforce
it, he continued. why not enforce it ?
How can he advise them not to enforce
it?'
Hayne-I did not say that 7 said we
would advise them to go no further with
it,
Garber-Is not that an inference
which may be drawn from it?
Hayne-Enforcem implies that
something is done. There is nothing to
enforce. We are going to ad-
wise them to proceed on different lines.
and they never will do anything further
on these lines.
The Court-Then why not do as Judge
CARRIER says-rescind the resolution :?
Hayne-Possibly they will do that. If
your honor considers that necessary, /
suppose we could have that done.
The Court-One would think that IT
would be very important for the Board
of Railroad Commissioners. if they were
going to do anything about this resoIu-
ton, that they would do it, or. if not.
they would rescind it.
Hayne-If your honor has the slightest
doubt about that. or doubts our good
faith, we Will have those gentlemen re-
peal it.
The Court said, was it not a signifi-
cant or a proper inquiry, if they meant
S-rv,-9,re-~-%-s-sSr-sS,>eS,-S3