Los Angeles herald., 1910-04-08
Leftover Work
of Legislature
&c 1910 By Franklin
vi ! w. HichbOrn
|
Railroad
Regulation

must become plaintiff to establish its
contention.
Eleventh-To empower the state
board of railroad commissioners In the
event of a dispute over rates. to fix
an absolute rate from which the COM
mon carrier without consent of the
railroad commissioners must not de-
part.
The machine prevented the passage
of q bill containing these provisions
by very clever tactics.
Three railroad regulation bills were
introduced. The Stetson bill, which
provided for all the elements of effect
i've regulation enumerated above; the
Campbell bill, which was withdrawn
by it's author. Senator Campbell OF
San Luis Obispo, that the reform
forces could combine on the Stetson
bill, and the Wright bill, introduced
by Senator Leroy A. Wright OF san
Diego. The machine element go De-
hind the Wright bill.
The Wright bill made no provision
for the physical valuation of railroad
properties no provision for tho en-
poyment of experts by the railroad
commissioners; fixed the penalty for
infringement of the rules of the COM
mission at a fine only, instead of fine
and Imprisonment, and made no ade-
quate provision for the collection or
such fine; limited In section the In
itiation of prosecution under its pro-
vision of the attorney general, and
on this point was most ambiguous IN
section 70; provided no machinery by
which the state board of railroad COM
missionCrs can secure information for
the successful prosecution of its work;
made no provision for freight classln-
action: contained no effective anti-pass
provisions granted no authority to the
railroad commissioners to formulate
rules for demurrages, charges, etc. IL
relieved the offending railroad of the
necessity of prosecuting its objection
to a rule or regulation of the COM
mission and left the injured shipper TO
begin the prosecution or submit 10 tne
railroads demand, and finally limited
the state board of railroad commls-
sioners. where II became necessary for
them to establish a rate. to the maxi
mum rate, denying them by implica-
tion the authority to fix practical
absolute rate.
The so-called machine element IN
sisted that the absolute rate cannon
under the state constitution be au-
thorized by the legislature. On this ls-
sue alone the contest was carried on.
Next week the writer will show how
the very senator's who raised this OBJ
lection prevented the adoption OF a
constitutional amendment which would
have removed this alleged constltu-
tional difficulty II any such exist. EN-
merits hold, it may be said In passing,
that even under the constitution as II
now stands the absolute rate Is per-
missibe in California.
When the issue was finally carried
to the floor of the senate the wright
bill was substituted for the Stetsoh
bill by the following vote;
For the Stetson bill and against the
Wright bill-Ben. Blrdsall, Black.
Boynton. Caminetti. Campbell, Cart
wright. Curtin. Cutten, Holohan, Lew
is, Miller, Sanford, Stetson, StroDrldge'
Thompson-16.
For the Wright bill and against the
Stetson bill-Anthony, Bates, Bllls'
Burnett Estudillo, Finn Hare, Hart-
man, Hurd Kennedy, Leavitt, Martini
ELI. Mccartney, Price Reilly, savage
Walker Weed, Welch Wills, Wolte'
Wright--22.
Absent-Roseberry and Rush
Roth Roseberry and Rush announced
! later that had they been present they
would have voted against the wright
hill and for the Stetson bill. Walker.
Estudillo and Burnett. who voted lot
the Wright bill, have announced tnat
with clearer understanding of the ISSUE
they would have voted for the StetsoIi
bill q,
This would have made the vote Fl
for the Stetson bill and 10 for the
Wright bill. oo l.,
nut the senate vote of is to % In
favor of the Wright bill stood. The
measures had been delayed In the SEN
ate until March two weeks before
adjournment. The assembly thus had
no opportunity to intelligently CON
slider the issues involved. That body
did not consider the Stetson bill at all:
In the hurry of the closing days OF
the session the Wright bill was rusheu
to passage.
Thus California was given a rail-
road regulation law which leaves the
state not much better off than 1t was
before. The work of putting an et-
fective railroad regulation law on the
statute books, which was begun az the
session of 1909. remains to be COM
pleted by the legislature of 1911.