The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-04-30
MIR LA RUE AND THE EXAM
INER"

Union" Office.
MR.. LA RUE AND THE EXAM
INER."
Recently the Examiner" stated on
behalf Of Mr.. La Rue that as Commits
sioner he had twice been approached by
q representative Of the Southern Pa
cifc Company with a proposition in eff
feet that if the Railroad Commissioners
would rescind the resolution Of inten-
ton to reduce all rates of transporta-
ton in the State Of California % per
cent, the railroad company. on its
part, would dismiss its action in the
Circuit Court of the United States, thus
permitting the grain rate established
by the commission to become immedi-
ately effective The Examiner stated
on Mr.. La Rue's behalf that Mr.. La
Rue had twice declined this offer. Mr..
La Rue permitted this declaration of
the Examiner" to go uncontradicted.
He does not appear to be able to con-
tradict anything the Examiner may
say about him or anybody else. Where
upon the Record Union" declared that
1t was a vain boast on the part Of the
commission; that the % per cent. re-
duction was valueless, while it was al
together apparent that Mr.. La Rue's
term of Office was closing; that four
years incumbency had not borne
fruit. and that it would be well for
him not TO obstruct the establishment
of the reduced grain rates.
This is a fair statement of the whole
case. There was nothing in this prop
osition which appears to have needed
concealment; nor does it appear to be
charged by any one that it was offered
in a confidential way. Mr.. La Rue says
he declined it because it was not writ
ten. Eventually, however, the matter
rested between the attorneys of the
board and the attorneys of the COM
pany, and if the Commissioners had
wanted to conduct the public business
as it should have been conducted, Mr.
La Rue himself admits that he was in
a position to have urged the attorney
of the board to bring the matter to a
conclusion.
The attempt to make it appear that
a proposition to dismiss the litigation
between the two litigants meant some
thing sinister and Interior is ridiculous
and absurd on its face. If the rail-
road company made a proposition to
Mr.. La Rue such as he claims it did,
il was simply his duty to have consid-
cred 1t. 1t was a proposition which
the railroad company could afford to
make and to which Mr.. La Rue could
afford to listen. It implied no corrupt
relation or bargain. 1t was a public
reason for a public act.
And now comes the Examiner" ap-
parently with Mr.. La Rue's connivance
and consent, to declare that the par
ties who made the proposition intended
simply to protect the Southern Pacific
from continuous litigation. 1t pretends
to believe that the Southern Pacific
Company is afraid to have the suit be-
fore the Circuit Court go to trial.
In this the Examiner will find it.
self wholly mistaken. We are unequiv-
ocally informed by those in a position
to know what they are talking about
that the Southern Pacific Company will
meet that suit in the Circuit Court and
viii try conclusions of law to a finish.
Whatever relation it has sustained with
individuals, or with the press, notably
the Examiner" it is ready and willing
shall have the most complete exposure.
The charge Of corrupt practices has
been banded about for the past third
of a century. Now is the opportunity
Of all those who have taken stock in
TRADES Of this kind to come forward
with their knowledge. The books of the
corporation will be at their service. All
items of expenditure will be exposed
Nothing will be reserved, and the thing
most devoutly to be wished is that the
investigation shall be most rigid and
thorough.
This investigation will afford a splen-
did opportunity to disclose both the ma
ture and the motive which influenced
the railroad company in approaching
the Railroad Commission with a propo-
sition to end litigation. The good faith
of that proposition and those who made
it will suffer nothing by the most rigid
investigation, and the attorneys of the
company declare that they will make
this investigation so complete as to
leave nothing to be desired. Some of
the gentlemen interested viii find the
difference between irresponsible Wilt
fcation with which the columns of a
certain low class of journals TEEN and
deliberate testimony presented in court
The corporation appears to be some
what in the mental attitude of Macbeth,
and are ready to say:
Lay on Lay on. Lay on, Macduffi
And damned be he who first cries: Hold!
Enough"
Sacramento is asked bv the call for