The record-union., 1896-01-09

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. SIN the
suit of the Southern Pacific Company,
to restrain the State Board of Railroad
Commissioners from cutting the pres
ent freight rates Of the corporation, in
the United States Circuit Court to-day
counsel for the defendants asked per-
mission to submit arguments and au-
thorities in support of the afddavits, to
the admission of which the railroad OBJ
jected yesterday. The defense desired
to substantiate the statements of the
affidavits, based upon evidence taken
by the Congressional Commission, by
submitting proofs of their correctness.
The various documents were not i'm
naediately admitted in evidence, but Mr..
Hayne was given leave to offer verbal
testimony identifying and substantial
ing them. To this end he called Thomas
/. Bergin, the well-known attorney, to
the stand.
In answer to questions addressed to
him, Mr.. Bergin explained that he had
acted as one Of the legal representa-
tives of the Southern and Central Pa
cific Companies during the inquiry held
by the Congressional Commission. He
stated, further. that the railroad people
had naturally sought to remove an i'm
preston which had been sought to be
created in certain quarters to the eff
feet that there had been n1ismanage-
ment and fraud in the building of the
overland roads, to the end that the aid
received from the Government had been
wasted and misapplied. In contraven-
ton Of this idea the railroad officers
submitted evidence to show that when
the overland lines were in course of
construction the war was going on
wages and material were high, and the
cost of construction was necessarily
much greater than it might have been
later. Charges which in after years
seemed extravagant and excessive were,
therefore, not necessarily so in reality.
Mr.. Bergin's examination was quite
brief, Attorney Hayne simply seeking to
have the witness, in a manner authen-
ticate the testimony which he wished
to introduce, while Mr.. Herrin, in his
cross examination, sought to bring out
that the inquiry at which the testimony
was given was not of such character
as to entitle it to be considered as for
NAL and official to that extent which
would entitle it to be admitted as eyi-
dence for the purposes now proposed.
Attorney Hayne also called Vice
President J. c. Stubbs, who answered
a few questions, giving the names OF
certain gentlemen whom he believed
had been directors or officers of the
Southern Pacific at the time the in
curry was held. He. could not say with
certainty, however, as to which of
them testified before the commission.
He did so himself, but whether he or
the others who did SO received formal
subpenas ne could not say. Some of
the witnesses were now dead and others
absent from the State.
On cross ss-examination, answering Mr..
Herrin, Mr.. Stubbs stated that the rail-
road company did not initiate the in
curry but simply acted responsively
in the matter.
'fThe managers of the company would
scarcely be likely to do anything vol
UNFAIRLY in the matter" he explained,
"since 1 understand that the investiga-
ton was regarded as an unfriendly
move"
F. s. Douty of the railroad company
was next called as a witness and ques-
toned on much the same lines, reply
ing about as Mr. Stubbs had done.
The matter Of identifying the pro-
posed evidence, so to speak, having
thus been disposed of, it was agreed
that it should be read for the purpose
of allowing the court to thoroughly un-
derstand it's character before the ques-
tion of it's admissibility should be de-
termined. This will necessarily be a
matter of much time, as the testimony
in question, as given before the Con-
gressional committee, covers many
pages of printed matter.