The San Francisco call., 1899-05-11
THE MILK IN THE COCOANUT.

the other day in the Circuit Court OF the United
States and Judge Morrow had refused to entertain
the motion because presented on behalf OF the
respondents in the suit and was based upon false state
ments in the resolutions adopted by the Railroad
Commission, under which the Attorney General was
compelled to act, it is reported that Judge Morrow
pointedly addressed himself to T. S. Pillsbury who
represented the Southern Pacific Company, and
asked. why don't you dismiss the case?" and that
Mr. Pillsbury replied, Well we don't know to what
penalties that might subject us
This brief sentence lets the milk out OF the cocoa
nut In order that the public may fully comprehend
the significance OF the admission and be enabled in
tellgently to determine why Mr.. Huntington played
the game OF pretended withdrawal from politics so
low down while the canvass OF last year was proceed
ing in order, among other things, secure control
OF the Railroad Commission, a clear apprehension Of
the facts is essential.
In 1895 the Railroad Commissioners adopted a
resolution for horizontal reduction of freghts to
the extent OF IS per cent This resolution CON
denned by their special counsel, Robert Y. Hayne
and w. w. Foote, and also we believe, by Judge
Fitzgerald, the Attorney General, was never followed
up by schedule and therefore never carried into
effect. But the Commissioners also on September IL
and IS, 1906 resolved to lower grain rates by per
and this conclusion was regularly scheduled and
over which Judge McKenna at that time presided was
brought and a sweeping injunction obtained, alter
ward modified that it applied exclusively to the
schedule OF grain rates. and in all other respects was
dissolved
The narrowness of the injunction as ultimately
framed disposed OF the false pretense that it was nece
sary to rescind the per reduction and have
the suit dismissed in order enable the Commission
to proceed with a systematic readjustment OF the
railroad tariff They in way hindered in
whatever action they might have fit to take with
respect other commodities and as to grain ITSELF
they might have made any substantial modification Of
their schedule OF 1895 without ncurrng the penalties
OF contempt
The present board, therefore, rather Messrs.
Blackstock and Laumeister, the majority OF the pres
ent board, acting in antagOnism to Commissioner Ed
SON. repealed the resolution OF 1895 and instructed
Attorney General Ford to move for the dismissal OF
the suit without any assgnabe justification or pai-
alton and only in the railroad interest And they
overruled Mr. Edison not only under these condi,
tons but in the face OF the advice OF their special
counsel, solicited by themselves. There are many
reasons why the litigation should be pressed to con
clusion The railroad appealed to a OF equity
and by the scope OF its bill OF complaint, put great
fundamental questions in issue far transcendng in
importance the validity of the grain rates, and in
volvng the power OF the State through its Railroad
Commissioners, over the whole subject OF reights
and fares One of these questions is the right Of the
owners OF a railroad system, operated within State
by the subterfuge OF transferring their property
to a corporation organized elsewhere to escape from
reasonable local supervision. In other words il is
practically important and also possible in this litiga
ton TO ascertain whether the Central Pacific Railroad
Company and the entire congeries OF corporations in
California bearing the Huntington brand can mas
ouerade under the disguise OF the Southern Pacific
Company OF Kentucky Another material point is to
find out whether in fixing the basis upon which rates
are to be adjusted insure fair interest upon
the values OF railroad property, fictitious exagger
ated Indebtedness is to be computed The railroad
claimed both in its bill OF complaint and in the pre-
sentation OF its by counsel that the estab
lshed by itself were just and even excluded legitimate
profit and therefore that. apart from other legal
obstacles there nothing upon which the judg
ment OF the commission could act.
The railroad selected its own forum and made its
own case. 1t ought not to be permitted to recede
from the position it deliberately assumed. 1t has
not dared to ask straightorvardy for the dismissal
OF its suit but has depended upon the friendship OF the
Commissioners to whom It's political support was
surreptitiously extended. In American history no
more damnable outrage no more brutal infraction
Of the elementary principle OF equality before the
law has been designed than the effort Of the railroad
emperor to run both sides OF a litigation in which he
is vitality interested. Railroad Commissioners who
would allow themselves to be used in this infamous
manner should be excoriated from one end OF the
Union to the other.
The most cogent reason for the refusal Of Judge
Morrows invitation by Mr.. Pillsbury hinted in his
quoted reply and remains to be explicitly stated II
the grain schedule OF 1906 be valid the railroad its
which il they could be enforced would probably
amount in money to than the value OF the whole
railroad property, and would subject numerous prom-
nent individuals to imprisonment in the County Jail
for life Article g. section 22 OF the State consttu-
ton OF 1870 contains the following seexecuting pro-
vision:
ANY railroad corporation transportation COM
pany which shall fail or refuse to conform to such
rates shall be established by such Commissioners
or shall charge rates in excess thereof or shall fail
keep their accounts in accordance with the system