The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-01

as affecung the property OF one OF It's citizens
or residents. There are no contracting wrong
doors seeking to avoid or enforce an act of
misfeasanee.
1t was admitted in the argument that the
Board OF Commissioners dealt with transporta-
ton companies rs they existed as fact. not
with the validity of their existence. 1t is
easily conceivable that if the latter were neces-
sary, confusion and weakness Of administra-
ton would result.
The Commissioners dealt with the Southern
Pacific Company. Their notices were served
on it, their hearings were granted to it and
the grain schedule was served on it.
The CompIainants' Status.
1 think, therefore, that as the Southern Pa
cifc Company was regulated it may complain
OF that regulation. That if its possession and
management OF the railroad properties could
be assumed or accepted as valid by the Board
of Commissioners for the purpose of regulation
they may be By the court in order to review
the business of that regulation. This is con-
sistent and rational-makes effective the con-
stitution and the laws and gives full and ef
ficient exercise to and execution OF the powers
of the board.
This disposes of what may be termed the pre-
liminary contentious of respondents. There
are others, which will be considered hereafter.
There are some urged by complainant. The
most extreme one 1t is difficult TO state sue
cinctly and make it understood. The counsel
who made it comedies the power OF regulation,
but very guardedly defines its limits. He says
it cannot be exercised to transcend the prohi-
billions of the fourteenth amendment of the
constitution, and. stating it more directly,
says, claiming to quote Mr.. Justice Field. in
Georgia Banking Company VS.. Smith. 12S U.
S., 179-1S0, that its only rightful exercise is
"to prevent extortion by unreasonable charges
aud NV inst oic inc
This, counsel says, is the fullest power the
State has either by Legislature or commission
and the fullest power the State in reason
should went or exercise. To bring into clear
prominence his idea he stated the value of q
railroad to be what it could earn without in
reference with its rates under what he termed
the normal play OF natural and economic laws.
and if exercising this liberty it treat ali alike,
then a reduction of its rates would be taking
of property without compensation or depriYing
it OF the equal protection of the laws
An explanation of these economic laws we
need not make, but it is certain that they are
not the same for road which has no CON-
pelitors as for road which has competitors,
not the same for monopoly as for competition.
In the former case what certainty would
there be of reduction of rates? That would
depend upon the railroads sense OF its own
interests and the pubic interests. This sense
might or might not be an enlightened one
might or might not be liberal one-and
economic laws might, therefore plead in vain
for observance. I do not say they would, but
might, and does not experience OF the disposi-
ton and conduct of men admonish that all
power is at times abused? The right-abstraet
right-of the State, therefore, to reduce rates
seems to be a necessity. Whether it should in
any case be exercised or not is another ques-
ton. Does the right exist? That 1 think 1t
does may have sufficiently indicated in con-
sidering the contentious of respondents.
The power of the State stops at injustice
The rights of railroad stop at in justice. The
State may not fix rate unreasonab bly, low. 1t
may prevent railroad from fixing one un-
reasonably high. If a law gives railroad
privileges it exacts from il duties. 1t exacts
that it serve all at reasonable charges; serve
all faithfully and without favor or diserimina-
ton,
The other contentious of the complainant
either deny the legality of the commission or
the legality of its action.
Under the first it is urged that the pro-
vision OF the California constitution which
makes the rates conclusively just and reason
able in all its controversies, civil and GRIM
inal, is in conflict with the fourteenth amend
ment to the cons ttution of the United States.
81 Being void, and being also indissolubly
blended with the provisions creating the COM
mission, these are also void.
a. That no notice to the railroad is pro-
vided for.
o. That the provisions of the constitution
apply to railroads owned by railroad corpora
tons and companies and not to railroads gen.
orally, and that its penalties have also the
same discrimination, and hence the complain
act is deprived of the equal protection of the
laws.
Under the second, it is urged that two of the
Commissioners tMr. La Rue and Mr. stanton)
took such pledge before election as to dis
qualify them from actingsand that La Rue
was interested, because a shipper of grain.
and hence judge in his own case And be-
cause the board acted arbitrarily and contrary
to the evidence or any evidence adduced be-
fore the board.
tbs in erect admitted, or at any rate is es-
tabl1shed by authority, that the provision
which gives conclusiveness to the rates fixed
by the Commissioners is void, but it is claimed
that 1t is clearly separable from the power to
establish rates. The power ana the effect of
the exercise OF the power as evidence, and the
penalties which may follow from disobedience
are clearly separable, and being so one can
not Vitiate the other.
1t Is, however, further urged that the con-
elusive provision was the main inducement of
the others, and that the latter would not have
10 sustain this view extracts are given from
the speeches OF certain of the mem bers Of the
constitutional convention. They are too long
and too many TO quote. 1t is enough to say that
hey do not go that far and, besides, the speak
ers we're but a few members of large con.
yention and, besides again, they can be no
index Of what intention the people had by
their adoption of the constitution
The objection that the provisions OF the Cali
10 ton, ffr,.r floD
road Commissioners is invalid because they
90 not require notice to the railroads is Ger
tainly doubtful as law, il it be not disputabIe
as a correct Interpretation Of those provisf ons
Decisions are then cited and quoted
from to show that notice is not necessary.
Election Pledges Ignored.
The other contentious, based on the interest
of La Rue as shipper of grain and on the
pledges of La Rue and Stanton before election,
OF no especial consequence-the former
because the grain rate reso ution was adopted
by unanimous vote, and the latter because,
after all, the final inquiry must be, We're the
reductions resolved upon reasonable? And we
are aided little in that inquiry or into the con-
ditions and circumstances involved in it by a
consideration of Mr.. Stanton's prejudice or
non-prejudce.
This brings us to the other contentious of re,
spopdents and TO the merits of the contro-