The San Francisco call., 1898-05-25
Railroad Commission CTS May So Decide.
GRAVE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
WRIT OF PROHIBITION BY
 JUDGE BELCHER.
Very Serious Complications Growing Out of the Unceremonious Departure of Collis P.
 Huntington.

The train of events that are follow ing the recent sudden Ieave-taking of Collis P. Huntington bids fair to occupy the attention Of the members of the State Board of Railroad Commission CTS and some other persons for some months to come. The liberty of several attorneys and railroad officials and at least one Superior Judge is threatened to say nothing of a concerted attack that Is to be made on the very life of the Railroad Commission itself.
 Yesterday was the time fixed for the hearing of the contempt proceedings that are to be instituted by the com mission against Huntington and his counsel, Attorney Pillsbury, on account of Huntingtons sudden departure from the State while under subpoena as wit ness in the suit of John R. Robinson against the Southern Pacific Company. Just prior to the opening of the session the Commissioners were served with a writ of prohibition from the Superior Court, commanding them to take no further action in the Robinson suit un- til the question of jurisdiction had been passed on by the Judge who issued the writ The writ was issued by Superior Judge Belcher and was made re- turnable on June in Department of the Superior Court Garret W. Me Enerney is named as attorney for the railroad company
 Though the service of the writ of pro- hibttion could not affect the prosecu- tion of the contempt proceedings, events proved that the two are to be very intimately connected The ques- tion turns on the power of Superior Judge to enJoin the State Board of Railroad Commissioners, which is a body having peculiar and extraordin- ary powers granted to 1t by the con stitution of the State. Acting on the belief that the Superior Court has no authority over the board, Attorneys Monteith and PhiIbrook will to-day ask the Commissioners for an order citing Judge Belcher to appear and show cause why he should not be pun ished for contempt because of his ac- tion in issuing the writ of prohibition. This will have the effect of bringing in- to question the power of the board-a question that the highest judicial trib- unals will no doubt be asked to finally determine.
 Attorneys Monteith and PhiIbrook announced that before asking the Com missioners to make an order citing c. P. Huntington and Attorney Pillsbury to appear and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt they would ask that some evidence be taken bearing on the alleged contemp- tuous acts of the parties accused. To this end they have caused to be sub penaed several witnesses who were present in response to the summons with which they had been served. These were Attorney Herrin, chief counsel for the Southern Pacific Com pany; Judge Garber, special counsel for the Southern Pacific Company; w H. Mills, H. D. Huntington, B. A Worthington, Attorney Muenter, Jer- ome A Fillmore, J. B. Wright of Sac ramento and Chief Train Dispatcher Norton.
 The attorneys expect to draw from these witnesses some corroboration ot the alleged fact that Huntington left the city because he was advised to dc so by his attorneys.
 Attorney Pillsbury was not present at the session. He was represented by Attorney Arthur Rodgers, who asked that continuance of the con- tempt proceedings be granted, because .Pillsbury had been called to Boston tC try an important case that is set fol hearing on June 6.
 No action was taken on this reques because Robinson's attorneys asked that they be given an opportunity tt inspect the papers in the case of the writ of prohibition before proceeding further. No objection was made tC this request, and by consent further proceedings were postponed until | o'clock this morning. All witnesses were notified to return at that time.