The record-union., 1896-05-16

nothing by the resolution, why did they
not, or do they not rescind it?
The resolution about which all the
trouble has arisen and which has been
known in this litigation as the % per
cent. resolution, is as follows:
Resolved, That the present rates of
charges for the transportation of
freights in California by the Southern
Pacific Company and its LEASED. lines are
unjust to the shippers of the State;
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the present rate of
charges for the transportation of
freights in California by the Southern
Pacific Company and its leased lines be
subjected to such an average reduction
as, including all reductions made there
IN since December /, 1894, shall equal
an average reduction of % per cent.
upon said rates as in existence on said
December l, 1894.
This resolution is in almost the exact
words Of the platform upon which two
of the Commissioners were elected. The
free and easy way in which it was pro-
posed to rescind it is said to have sent
cold chills up the political spfnes of the
Commissioners who voted for it. when
they heard of it. At any rate, there
was stir and activity until the agree
ment to rescind it had been taken back
in court.
The figure it cuts is this: The Attor-
ney-General claims it means nothing.
is mere declaration of intention by n
legislative body, and as such cannot
be reached by Injunction The com
plainant's attorneys insist that it is
such action or threatened action as the
court can enjoin. MIR PiIlsbury, in his
argument, said: I'VE are assured that
there is no cause for the complainant to
be alarmed about this resolution; that
the Commissioners are not going to act
on it unless, upon further investigation.
they think it just. What is the occasion
Of this possible change of heart? Com
missioner LaRue, in his affidavit, after
reclting what took place in the board.
says the entire subject of freight rates
was fully and thoroughly and carefully
and conscientiously investigated and in
Quired into. If this resolution of the
board has been adopted after thorough
and conscientious investigation. what
IS there left to do but enforce it? If they
did not mean to pass this resolution. if
1t was done through mistake or mad
vertance, why do they not rescind it?
Is it mere threat or was it designed as
sop to their constituents in Difference
to the pledge in the platform upon
which they were elected, whereby to
keep the word of promise to the ear
and break it to the hope? Shall not an
honest man be held to mean what he
says? This action of the board is its
judgment, and the preparation and serv-
ice of the schedule is no more than the
issuance and levy of an execution"
Both Commissioners LaRue and STAN
ton, who were the two members of the
board in the city yesterday, were very
guarded in what they had to say of the
matter. They were both evidently glad
that they had so easily got out of any
seeming obligation to rescind the reso-
luton.
1T was suggested several months
ago, said Commissioner Stanton, "that
thIs resolution should be rescinded, and
the whole subject was gone over then
Ihe conclusion was reached not to re-
SEND 1t. L know of nothing that has
occurred to change that decision Just
what Hayne said or what he meant by
What he said ] don't know, but [ don't
think he meant to pledge the board to
repeal that resolution. If the Attorney
| General should advise that it be done I
suppose the board would do it. But he
advises the contrary"
''The resolution doesn't mean any,
thing" said Commissioner LaRue, "ex-
cept that we intended to investigate and
reduce rates wherever we thought thew
ought to be reduced. But it wasn't final
action. I'd like to be told how anyone
could go to work to make a schedule
with no other directions than are in
that resolution. There is nothing at
issue in this litigation but the s per
cent. grain rates. But even if the court
thinks this resolution is in effect and
that % per cent. is an unreasonable re-
duction, and enjoins US, that don't pre-
vent US from making reasonable reduc-
tons I am not in favor of resembling
the resolution
Attorney General Fitzgerald said he
was sure if the resolution was rescind-
ed it would simply mean an amended
bill in this case and possibly the pay
ment of costs by the State, and that the
whole case would have to be gone over
again.
When Judge McKenna had heard the
Attorney-GeneraPs disavowal of any
lllleiillOu 10 dUN1Se the GeSclnQlng OF the
% per cent. resolution, he asked him
and Mr.. Hayne to make clear what he
felt was an inconsistency in their argu-
ments. The Attorney-General had in
sisted that under no circumstances
could there be an injunction to restrain
the enforcement of these rates. while
Hayne had agreed that if it should be
held that they could be enjoined, but
ha ia-
court, he would waive the techncaIity
and consent to have the proper parties
brought in. Hayne insisted that there
was no Inconsistency, but if there were,
the Attorney-Generals argument was
to prevail. However, the court insisted
that there was an inconsistency, and
wanted counsel to agree. In order to
give them time to consult he adjourned
the case until this morning.
STONED A TRAIN.