Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1913-07-25
Tells His Stand on Recent Rate
Hearing. Complete Review of the
Facts in the 3 cent Fare Hearing

written long before the Railroad
Company made any contention, ex-
cept that there should be no reduc-
ton at all, as such corporations al
ways contend, and as this company is
doing now.
If an Order had been made apply
ing a Scent fare upon the main line,
stopping there, it would have been III
strict harmony with the issues as
made at the hearing. The Railroad
Company would have fought it just
have been overthrown, either upon
the law or the facts.
My associate, who wrote the ma jor-
ity opinion, in discussion with me.
has said that if an Order had been
made applying a Scent fare upon the
main line, and gone no farther. the
Southern Pacific Company would not
have had ''leg to stand on" | sub
NIT that this is exactly the kind of an
oiuSi ludt tllt AolllllliSSloH ought ~
make, if it desires, with certainty, to
accomplish substantial results We
should make Orders that we feel we
can surely defend. and not plunge
into a field of new. untried and uT
proved experiment. In fighting the
Order made in this case, prescribing
a Scent fare upon both the main line
and the branch the Southern Pacific
Company has, i'll my judgment, as
many legs to stand on as a centipede
If it be true tha tthe railroad attor-
neys have followed the line of argr-
ment contained in my dissenting opin-
ion. it is something in the nature OF
a compliment to me. 1t is known to
al! men that the Southern Pacific
Company has a formidable corps of
attorneys, men of native ability edu~
Gated thoroughly in the basic prin-
Ciples of the law, and who have had
the benefit of large experience in the
special lines of railroad litigation. If
such men as they have followed the
line of argument in my dissenting
opinion, it simply goes to show that
they know a good argument when
they see it.
Let me say that this case is now in
the hands OF Judge harrington, an
able and conscientious jurist. At the
present time it is under consdera-
ton merely upon the question of a
preliminary injunction, and not upon
the merits. If the contentious of the
majority of the Commission are
sound, there is no reason why, with
the aid of the Attorney General, the
majority should not be able to sus-
tain the Order If it is upheld shall,
of course, accept the judgment of the
court. My own opinion is that what
ever the decision may be upon the
preliminary question now under con-
sideration, the Order can never be
ultimately sustained, in view of recent
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and to which great tri-
bunal the case will undoubtedly be
carried by the Railroad Company, if
it meets with an adverse decision in
the trial court.
In conclusion. let me say that the
record which | have made upon this
Commission, and the battles which |
have fought in court, and before the
Interstate Commerce Commission,
against the Southern Pacific Com
pany. and all other corporations with
which this Commission has had to
deal should be sufficient answer to
the mputation that | am favoring the
railroad side of this controversy.
H. F BARTINE.
Carson City, Nevada, July Is, 1913.