The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-07-08
RATE DECISION
IN CALIFORNIA.
Southern Pacific Enjoined at the
Instance of the State
Commission.
REDUCED FARES MUST STAND.
a Constitutional Question In.
volyed Which VIII Go Before
Higher Courts-General
Railroad Notes.

Tia decision just rendered by Judge Rahrs
OF the Superior Court at san Francisco IN
favor OF the California Railroad Commits
sion Is creating comment in all sections, as
# has an important bearing on the rate
making rights OF railroad company, not
only IN that State but IN all others where
commissions EXIT.
The last issue OF the Railway Age gives a
synopsis Of tha contentious in the case and,
in addition. comments on the decision as
follows:
California is distinguished By having a
State law Furnishing railways for making
reduced rates. Section 20 OF article u of the
State Constitution reads:
Whenever a railroad corporation shall.
for the purpose Of competing with any 9TH
er common carrier, lower its rates for
transportation OF passengers or freight from
one point TO another, such reduced rates
ehau not be again raised or Increased from
such standard without the consent of tho
governmental authority IN which shall be
vested the power to regulate fares and
freiehts-'
Last year the Southern Pacific announced
a special ticket rate 10 various points be
tween San Francisco and Los Angeles lower
than the regular rate by from ~ cents 10
500. Although 70 mention was made OF the
competing line. IN the Instructions and adj
ve-tisenents Of the railroad company, the
Railroad Commission assumed that the re-
auctions were made to meet the competition
Of the new San Francisco and San Joaquin
Valley road, and when the Southern Pacific
proposed to restore the regular tariff rate
the commission refused assent and appealed
TO State court to enjoin the company
from charging more than the reduced rate.
The suit was brought in the name OF an
Individual who complained that he was
Fo- i1,-a 70
TO which point the company had been
charging only 1915, an6 the decision applies
directly only TO Fresno. although the prin-
ciple is OF extended application.
In its answer. the company denied that
the reduction wk made to meet the COM
petition Of the Valley road, maintaining that
1t was an excursion or Communication rate,
and II asserted that the $50 rate is con-
hscatory and unjust, and also urged that
the provision OF the State Constitution re-
Constitution. because Il denies to defendants
the equal protection Of the Law. in that IL
does not apply 10 al common carriers; also.
that its enforcement would take the prop
erty OF the company without due process
OF law.
Tho court Judge Bahrs) denies all these
premises. declares untenable the contention
(Which previous events in California seem
to justify that the consent OF the Railroad
Commission to tbs restoration OF rates may
be arbitrarily and unreasolably withheld.
and declines to rule that $S.15 Is an unreal
Eonably low permanent rate. because thu
railroad company voluntarily put 1t in. al
though for a temporary purpose. So the
court gives the Railroad Commission a final
and permanent Injunction against the South
ern Pacific, as asked
'Of course, the company will appeal to q
higher court. removed from local interests
md prejudices. Meantime, the spirit of the
Railroad Commission IN refusing its consent
to the restoration OF the regular rate seems
neither just nor wise Regardless Of the pur-
pose for which the reduction was made, 1t
Is prepGsterous 10 maintain that q rate or
g 7k Is q reasonable fare for carrying a pas
eenger q distance Of 10! miles In California"