The record-union., 1899-04-07

courses: first, it can either go on with
the litigation, in which event the m
| Junction against the commission will re-
main in force until the final decision OF
the case, which could not be reached
probably during the term OF the present
Commissioners; and even If the case
should finally be decided in favor Of the
State, no reduction of rates could be
had until after the expiration OF the
present Commissioners term; second,
the alternative course opened to the
commission is to get rid of the present
litigation, thus removing the injunction
and leaving them free to make such
changes and reductions as hearing and
determination might justify.
/ It has been stated that this proposed
action Of the Railroad Commission was
inspired by the Southern Pacific Com
pany in order to get rid of the present
litigation; but it is obvious that If the
Southern Pacific Company were anxious
to get rid of this litigation it could dis
miss the case. as it has perfect right
to do.
4 In the early stages Of this suit, and
before any considerable expense had
been incurred, the Southern Pacif1c
Company suggested in open and proper
way to the Chairman of the commission
that if the Commissioners would re-
Iscind the 25 per cent. resolution and de-
sist from further efforts to reduce, the
icompany might consent to put IN force
the per cent. grain schedule. rms
proposition was not acted upon OWING
ito disagreement between the Commls-
sioners and the company as to how tnat
proceeding should be taken, or as to
how the proposition itself might be
compassed
Failing in the proposed compromise,
the hearing of the case was proceeded
with and much testimony has been
taken. The Southern Pacific declares
that it is it's desire that the case should
be continued to final adjustment, which
lit claims to be confident must result In
a Judgment in it's favor.
1t has also been urged that decision
should be reached relating to the hear
ing as to whether the leases to the
Southern Pacific Company of railroads
owned by other corporations in the
State of California are valid or invalid.
Judge McKenna decided that the ques-
ton could not be raised in this case,
and among the reasons assigned for
this decision was that the Commission
ers themselves had recognized the va
lidity of these leases by their resolu-
tions reducing the rates of the Southern
Pacific Company, thus recognizing it as
legally in possession of these railroad
lines. It is highly probable that Judge
| McKenna's decision in this regard will
be confirmed, and even if the decision
were otherwise and the Court should
hold the leases to be invalid, in what
manner would this profit or concern the
State? New leases could be made un-
der the provision of what is known as
the Santa Fe Consolidation Bin," and
even all these lines could be consolidat-
ed by purchase into new company un-
der the provisions of that bin.
/ Since the Commissioners have the
right to regulate the rates on rail-
road line whether it is leased to an
other company to be operated or
whether it is operated by the company
owning it, what difference will it make
to the people of the State of California
whether the operation shall lbe separat-
ed by declaring a lease to be invalid, or
whether the regulation shall proceed
on a leased line, the right to regulate
a leased line being admitted?
A careful review Of this matter brings
into view the issue: Shall the present
commission continue in litigation
which is profftless to the people, incur
the expense of prosecuting such Htiga-
ton, thus making it absolutely certain
THAT they will not be able during their
term of office to secure any reduction
of rates whatever. or whether they
should get rid of this litigation, and
then proceed in proper and legal way
to secure for the people of the State
lsuch reduction in rates as may be had,
and attempt only such reduction of
rates as may be clearly within the pur-
view of the constitutional authority
they exercise?
The bare foundation of this question
points to its only possible answer.