The San Francisco call., 1897-01-26

ern Pacific Company to crush out opposi-
tion and destroy the property vf COM
psting common carriers.
1t is further averred that large expendi-
lures have been made by the unlawful
com bination of corporations controlled by
the Southern Pacific Company for the sole
purpose OF shutting out com petition and
destroying the interests of other common
carriers and perpetuating the control of
the complainant over the commerce OF the
State. The company recoups itself for
these expenditures and for the low rates
fixed at certain localities by this unlawful
com mbination and by unreasonable and un-
Just increase of rates in other localities,
'all in order to perpetuate its monopoly
OF the business of transportation In the
State and stifie competition and drive all
competitors from the market"
1t is averred, further, that the COM
plant of the Southern Pacific mpany
In making application for an injunction
did not properly present the resolution OF
the Railroad Commission providing Tor
the reduction which it com plains Of, but
undertakes to mislead the court with re-
gard to a general reduction of freight
rates. at was and is the intention of
said board" says the answer, "before pro-
ceeding to make schedules in pursuance
of said resolution as to commodities other
than grain to investigate and inquire into
the conditions and circumstances sur
rounding, bearing upon and affecting the
traffic and rates of charges of said rail-
roads in the State of California"
The commission denies that it has
threatened to or intends to harass the
railroad com panies with a multiplicity of
actions, or that it fixed the rate in the
present instance arbitrarily, but that on
the contrary it gave the railroad full
hearing, the companF being represented
by its attorneys. 1t Is denied that the
rates fixed are unjust or would be con-
fiscatory OF the property rights of the
company.
The commission denies that they ever
threatened to reduce the passenger fares
of any of the roads mentioned, but they
deny also that any such reduction or fares
will prevent the roads from paying ex-
penses, but on the contrary such reduc-
tion would result in an increase of busi-
ness and profits.
Denial is made that Commissioners La
Rue and Stanton pledged themselves by
their party platform to make reduction of
rates without regard to the justice of the
act. It is averred that all of the mem bers
of the board before taking any of the
action complained of made a thorough
and complete investigation of the
freight and grain rates of all the COM
panies mentioned, hearing many wit
nesses and giving the attorneys of
they desired to be heard. 1t denied that
the actions of La Rue and Stanton as mem
bers of the board in voting for the reduc-
tion were not in good faith and The result
of bona-hde determination that the re-
ductions proposed were just and reason
able.
It is denied that the members of the
I n IL
freight fixed by the grain-rate resolution,
but they aver that obedience to the rates
fixed by the board is to be enforced by
criminal proceedings, to be instituted anu
prosecuted by other officers of rhe State.
1t is denied that the suit is controversy
between citizens of different States, ''and
in this behalf aver that the State of Cali
fornia is the real party in interestin the
defense Of this suit
The answer then sets forth that the rail-
road company is not entitled to the relief
asked for, for mum ber of reasons:
First-Because there is an adequate remedy
at law for any and all of the matters set forth
in the bill-tha is, by litlgating by way of de-
tense to any proceedings which may be
brought by any one to enforce either Of the
resolutions of the board.
Second-Because the only function of the
Board of Railroad Commissioners in regard 10
nxing rates or any other matter set up i'll the
bill is legislative in character and not subject
TO review by any court.
Third-Because, even If the junction of the
board was judicial in character it was exer.
cised after due notice and hearing and would
De as conclusive as any other judicial action.
Because the 70 per cent resolution has
never taken effect or gone into operation, and
because the other, the per cent, or gram rate
resol ution, although in effect by reason of the
making and service of schedule by the board
is not TO be enforced by that body, no power
being given to 1t to enforce any action taken
by 1t in relation to fixing railroad rates.
Because, under the constitution and laws
Observance of the rates of fare and freight
established by the board are to be enforced.
and disobedience punished by criminal pro.
ceedings which are not subject to be enjoiDed
or restrained by q court of equity.
Because "the complainant is not railroad
or ransportation company at all, aud is not
by its charter or otherwise auther zed or en-
powered TO operate the railroads mentioned
in said bill or any of them, or any railroad or