The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-01
ANDREW J. cLUNIE TALKS.
Declares 1t Victory for the Conn
mission on All Law Points.

Declares 1t Victory for the Com
mission on All Law Points. :.
Andrew ]. Clunie, who at the time the
Railroad Commission initiated the pro-
ceedIngs to reduce rates on the Southern
Pacific Company's lines was acting as the
personal legal adviser of James 1. Stan
ton, discussing the decision yesterday
said:
To my mind the decision of Judge MeKenns
is great victory for the Railroad Commission.
While 1t is true that he holds that In the pre-
lminary hearing and before trial he does not
consider the evidence before him sufficient to
justify reduction OF the rates of the company,
still on questions of law which have been
mooted for years and which the railroad CON-
pany has continually held over the heads OF
the people, his decision is conclusive, and by
it it is now settled that the commission as at
present constituted is constitutional body
and has power TO fix rates of transportation,
ana that no notice OF such fixing is requisite
to the company prior to the adoption OF such
rates by the commits SIGN.
Judge McKenna justly complained that the
showing made before him of operating ex-
penses, fixed charges and cost of construction
of the roads operated by the Southern Pacific
Company was very meager. The company
simply presents lump figures. 1t is absolutely
necessary that these matters should be gone
into in detail, and in my opinion it is the duty
of the commission at once TO institute a
thorough aHd complete investigation into
each of these items and for this purpose to
require the production before 1t of the books
OF accounts and all the vouchers OF the South
erp Pacific Company.
systematic examination of these will show
GROSS imitation OF all these charges.
1t is a matter of common notoriety that mil
lions of dollars have been corruptly and wrong
fully spent by this company, and 1t is these
expenditures that it is now sought to com pc
the people of the State to pay by means o.
excessive rates.
most important question of law and ons
when had hoped TO see decided, but which
was not passed upon, was whether or not the
commission were bound to fix such a rate Of
charge as would enable the company to pay
interest on its outstanding bonds as fixeo in
the bonds. This question has never been di
rectly raised and passed upon in these Rail
road Commission cases. The general current
of authority seems to be that as long as some
compensation is given the courts have nc
power to interfere. Interest on bonds, accord
ing to my understanding, is such compensa
ton, and do not believe the law will require
rates 10 be so fixed as to pay any rate of inter
est that may be agreed upon between bond
holders and the railroad.
The unfortunate part of this whole proceed
ing is that Judge McKenna by his action
should have tied the hands of the commission
for over q year and prevented them from
making the. full investigation that l men
toned, and which he, by his opinion, deem.
or such importance.
Under the decision of the Supreme Court O.
the United States and his own decision of 10
day ne had ABSOLUTELY no power TO issue the
general restraining order which he did. All
that he could restrain was the putting into
effect of the per cent order. II is unfortu
nate that Judge McKenna did not examine
the decisions of the highest judicial tribuna
of the country before he interfered with the
power of the State in this regard.
His action in this matter is but another
illustration of the great wrongs perpetrateG
by the courts when they attempt government
by injunction, and is strong argument IL
favor of the position lately taken bv the Demo
cratic party in opposition TO such action b,
the courts.