The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-01

san Francisco. Nov. S0--Judge McKenna,
OF tAe United States circuit court. today
asaseFed mis- long awaited decss.on in the
important case of the Southern Pacific
company against the state board or raj
roaa commissioners. involving the right
OF slae commission 10 restrict freight rates
oses the company's lines in this state.
bach SIDE claims a victory n the dec. sion,
Nssica comedies the right OF the commits
sion 10 make reductions in rates but
grants a permanent injunction against the
commissioners. restraining them from
making an per cent. reduction IN grain
rates on the ground that the profits OF the
Soa<hern Pacific do not justify that cut in
ratex.
The commission adopted a resolution re-
duc1ng the railroads schednia OF grain
rates IS per cent. Thereupon the railroad
hTsoughl suit in the United States court
for m injunction restraining the commits
son from interfering with its rates The
railroads complaint denies The right of the
comm. n.ssion to restrict the rates. alleging
that that power IS vested IN congress
aione.
Judge McKenna's decision today is that
the railroad commission 10 a legal body.
and that its powers are not only judicial.
but4segislatsye- X has the power not only
10 adjust rates but 10 enforce It's DEGREES.
The court could take from the commss-
Szon no part OF its functions. which include
the regulation OF the rates Of railroads.
Tha Southern Pacific, a corporation doing
business in this state. is clearly within the
jurisdiction OF the commission, and the
Southern Pacific is therefore subject TO the
Tulipgs of the commission The court de-
caesd 1t impossible 10 conceive how any
os ~ view could be taken.
Tie court also decided that the commits
sod has jurisdiction over corporation,
- rafer - .trsf a.
Considered at great length IN the decision,
hkaa discusses all the constitutional
posass raised by the railroad. The court
askx. What right, then, has tbs court
10 sass on any OF the functions or the rail-
road commi ssion. which have been clearly
established by iaw?'
ca the question raised by the Southern
Pacinc that TWO of the conlm sssoners
were ineligible TO reduce rates because OF
Their ante-electson pledges to reduce rates.
Jadxe McKenRa decided that the candi-
dates had a right TO make such pledges,
which did not constitute ineagihility.
The decision, which took three hours TO
read, concluded by granting permanent
= tg@zrs.on against the commissioners from
eh f5fc.ng the first reduction of per cent
In freight rates on the ground that the re-
ductson was excessive. considering the
earnings of the Southern Pacific. The
court dissolved the injunction against the
commissioners on the Is per cent reduc-
ton on the ground that Il was not the
Anal act of the company. but was equiva-
lent 10 a declaration of intention.
The effect OF the whole opinion was that
the case was left for a future final deter
rnination should that become necessary.
There had been a change In transportation
conditions On investigation il was prob
able that the commission would not ma
the cut necessary.
The order OF the court was that the Or
der staying the execution of the commits
sion's resolution be continued until fur
ther orders from the court, and that the
restraining order should otherwise be dis
solved The order staying the executio9
OF the commissioners referred to In the
courts conclusions vas as TO the per
cent grain reduction. Should II Insist on
It's position as 10 this il VIII have 10 make
out another case before the court This
the commission win probably do. The con-
tinuance or that point was left for trial
OF the case on permanent injunction
As Il has taken a year TO get decision
on the temporary injunction. the end in
the case OF permanent injunction pro-
ceedings. II is thought. viii be far on
There IS a proha h.lity that the commission
may change It's order and lower the
amount oe the per cent. reduction.