the cost of production 671 cents per bushel, or $1 12 cents per 100 pounds; that is, the total cost of producing wheat from an acre of ground is $13 50; add to this 273 cents per 100 pounds for freight, or $3 50 for 1,200 pounds, and the cost of producing and delivering in San Francisco the produce of one acre sown to wheat is $16 80. The outside quotation of wheat in San Francisco is $1 55 per 100 pounds, or for 1,200 pounds (making the gross return per acre) $18 60, the net profit of $1 80 per acre. While I have shown above the net profit from the product of an acre of alfalfa is, from the seed alone, from $4 35 to $5 35-and yet I understand the alfalfa seed is only a bi-product-that the acre yielding 100 pounds of seed has also yielded seven tons of hay. I hope that those who have talked without knowledge against this company's tariff will drop their favorite illustration of alfalfa seed. COMPLAINT No. 14, In this: it is presented that the public should not be charged ten (10) cents for the State toll for every small bill of goods, but charged only at the rate of ten cents per ton. With respect to this, the company charges the regular rate, the same that the shipper would have to pay were he to ship his goods by sea-going vessels, in which event toll will be included in his cartage charges paid by the drayman. The money collected by the company for State toll is collected for the State, and turned over to the proper authorities. Complainant alleges that some time in May he shipped a lot of shelving and counters; that he wanted to ship them on flat cars, etc., but the company would not consent, and he was charged the highest rate per 100 pounds, to wit: $2 261, the total charge, according to his recollection, $492. There was no such shipment made by complainant in May of 1880. The shipments he refers to are undoubtedly those made in 1878. One carload, containing 15,150 pounds fine counters, showcases, etc., was taken at the rate of $1 33 per 100 pounds, instead of $2 264, as alleged by shipper. And another carload, for which the freight was estimated-a car containing less, perhaps, than 10,000 pounds-was taken for $120. The total charges, instead of being nearly $500, as stated by shipper, were $322. The same complainant thinks that a charge of $1 80 per 100 pounds for drygoods, shipped in bales, when the same goods can be shipped in cases for $1 20, ought not to be allowed. I have explained above the reasons for rating baled goods higher than cased goods. A reasonable regard for the carrier's interests requires that goods shall be put up in safe and sufficient packages, in order to protect them from damage. The carrier may legally decline to receive goods in insufficient packages, but as in this case with us, as a matter of accommodation to shippers, sometimes accept the defective packages in consideration of a higher rate, to compensate for the higher risk. Even then the shipper has the option of casing his goods or baling them, paying in the latter case the higher rate. If he prefers to ship in bales at $1 80, it is evident that it is more economical for him to pay that rate, than to pack in cases at $1 20 per 100 pounds, but there is no reason why he should exercise this economy at the risk and damage of the railroad company. He also thinks that a merchant or farmer having miscellaneous goods, ought to be allowed to load a car by paying carload rates as established. What he means by carload rates, as established, is not clearly understood-whether he means carload rates on grain, or live stock, or other articles. This gentleman's ideas of freight tariff differ very materially, you will observe, from those of the gentleman making Complaint No. 7. The latter thinks that a carload rate, which is lower than the rate for small quantities, is a discrimination in favor of the rich against the poor, and protests against it, while Mr. Galtes evidently thinks there is not enough of that kind of discrimination going on. This remark is made respectfully, and simply to mark the prevailing difference of opinion as to what would be the correct principle to govern transportation charges. It illustrates that as long as we have different degrees of knowledge and experience among men, there will be difference of opinion. In view of which, it seems to me that the officers of this company may feel gratified over the result of the inquiry instituted by the Railroad Commissioners, not only as to the nature, but as to the number of the complaints filed. Respectfully submitted. J. C. STUBBS, General Freight Agent. (Signed) CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE, To the honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners: As the interrogatories for both years are substantially identical, I will treat of 1880 only. You ask: First-What is the amount of gross earnings of 1880 to your latest returns? State monthly. These six interrogatories I would answer as a whole, and say that our accounts are not kept so that we can segregate California business from the other upon the line, so as to be able to give you the desired information. Your interrogatory relative to the number of trains run daily, is nearly as difficult to answer as the others; however, I have counted up, and give you herewith, the number of regular passenger trains and regular mixed, or accommodation trains, as per schedule for the present month; but this will give you little or no information of value, from the fact that there are special or excursion trains run when business requires, which are not embraced in the following. Then again, nearly all the regular freight trains have a car attached for the accommodation of passengers locally through the State. DAILY, BETWEEN STATIONS EACH WAY. San Francisco and Niles. Niles and Livermore Galt and Sacramento San Francisco and Port Costa. Port Costa and Davis. Port Costa and Antioch. Antioch and Byron.. Byron and Tracy. Davis and Sacramento. Davis and Willows Davis and Woodland Davis and Knight's Landing. Vallejo and Suisun.. Sacramento and Roseville. Roseville and Redding Roseville and Reno.. Galt and Ione.... San Francisco and East Oakland. To your interrogatory No. 7, you ask us to "state the number of passengers carried in this State in 1880, to your latest returns, on the Central Pacific Railroad and leased lines, from and to stations on different sections of the road, so as to show the volume of travel on distinct portions of the road." This information is nearly as difficult to obtain and give you in an intelligible form as that asked for in the first six interrogatories; but feeling desirous of doing all we could to get for you the information wanted, we at once, on receipt of your memorandum on the eighth ultimo, placed a large corps of clerks upon this work, and herewith hand you the result. To the casual observer it would seem to be but the work of an hour; but you will notice here are 289 stations on the Central Pacific Railroad and leased lines in California, requiring ten sheets of foolscap, doubled ruled, to each station, showing the number of passengers carried, and average number per day, requiring 120 entries to each sheet. You will also observe there are sixty distinctions to each sheet, and in the aggregate 2,890 sheets. You ask for this information for the year 1879, and for that portion of 1880 up to and including our latest returns; but I am sure, when you have seen the great number of printed forms necessary to accomplish this work, and consider the labor put forth, you will, I think, be satisfied with the showing for one month, namely, September, 1880, having the largest passenger business. Every station report will be eyeleted together-ten sheets. I also send you herewith eleven sheets, eyeleted together, showing a recapitulation of passengers carried from any one station to all the others, and to any one station from all others, and showing the total number and average per day. Upon looking the recapitulation over more carefully, we have made a further synopsis, showing that there were forty-six stations from which there were no passengers carried: Eight from which the daily average was. There were also 40 stations to which there were no tickets sold, and there were: Fourteen to which the daily average was.... Eleven to which the daily average was.- This list might be continued, showing very many more stations that did not average one passenger a day either to or from. Trusting the information we give you here may be of interest and entirely satisfactory, I am yours truly, (Signed) A. N. TOWNE, General Superintendent. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The Pacific Coast Steamship Company vs. The Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. To the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California: The Pacific Coast Steamship Company, a corporation of the State of California, brings this, its bill against The Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California, and thereupon your orator complains and says: First-That George Stoneman, Joseph S. Cone, and C. J. Beerstecher, are the duly elected and qualified Railroad Commissioners of the said State, and constitute the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. Second-The Pacific Coast Steamship Company is, and ever since the thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, has been a corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the said State of California, for the transaction of the business of a steamship company on the Pacific Coast, and in any of the bays or harbors thereof, and anywhere in the Pacific Ocean. Third-The said steamship company owns a large number of steamships, which are actually engaged in the coasting trade, and make voyages therein along the Pacific Coast from San Francisco, in California, to Portland and Astoria, in Oregon, and to ports on Puget Sound, Washington Territory, and to ports in British Columbia, in the Dominion of Canada, and from said San Francisco to San Diego, in California, touching at many and divers way ports on the said coast of California. All of the said steamships, in making their said voyages, navigate the Pacific Ocean more than a marine league from the shore. Fourth-The said steamships carry goods sent from cities in States east of the Rocky Mountains, upon through bills of lading across the continent by rail to San Francisco, some of which are at the latter port transferred to said steamships in the original unopened packages, and thence carried by them to ports of destination, in the said States of California and Oregon, Washington Territory, and British Columbia. Some of the merchandise transported by the said company consists of goods imported from other States, and from foreign countries, but which have been opened in this State, and are not in the original package. Passengers with through tickets, and also passengers without through tickets, for Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, go to San Pedro, in California, upon said steamships, thence by rail and stage to and through Arizona and New Mexico to Texas. Passengers with through tickets from Europe, for British Columbia, Washington Territory, and Oregon, are carried from San Francisco by the said company's steamships to their ports of destination. Passengers are also transported on the said steamships from different ports within the State of California to other ports within the said State. Freight and merchandise is also shipped and carried on board of said steamers from ports in California to other ports in California, some of which freight consists of indigenous products and merchandise domestic to the State of California. Freight and merchandise is also shipped and carried on board of said steamers from southern ports in California to ports in Oregon and British Columbia, and to cities in States east of the Rocky Mountains, upon through bills of lading. That all of said steamships are enrolled and licensed to carry on the coasting trade by the Government of the United States, and are carrying on the said coasting trade under and by virtue of the said enrollment and license, and the Acts of Congress governing and regulating the said trade. Fifth-The Board of Railroad Commissioners claim that, under and by virtue of powers vested in them by the Constitution and laws of the said State of California, they have the power, and it is their duty: 1. To establish rates of charges for the transportation of passengers and freight carried by the said steamships. 2. To examine the books, records, and papers of said steamship company. 3. To hear and determine complaints against the said company, and to punish the said company for contempt of their orders and processes, and to enforce their decisions. 4. To prescribe a uniform system of accounts to be kept by the said corporation. And the said defendant threatens to and will establish the said rates of charge for the transportation of passengers and freight carried by the said steamships; and threatens to and will examine the said books, records, and papers of the said steamship company, and hear and determine complaints against the said company, and punish said company for contempt and disobedience of the orders and processes of the said defendants, and enforce their decisions; and threaten to and will prescribe a uniform system of accounts to be kept by the said corporation, unless restrained and enjoined by this honorable Court. That by so enforcing and carrying out the said threats, the said defendant will cause to your orator great and irreparable damage, and will cause and create against your said orator a multiplicity of suits. Wherefore, your orator prays for an injunction of this honorable Court, enjoining and restraining the said defendant from doing or performing any of the acts so threatened as herein before fully set out; and for such other and further order and relief as to equity shall seem just. And your orator further prays that a writ of subpoena issue herein, directed to the said defendant, commanding it to appear and show cause, if any it has, why the prayer of your orator should not be granted. JOS. P. HOGE, and IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The Pacific Coast Steamship Company vs. the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. Now comes the defendant in the above entitled action, and makes answer to plaintiff's complaint, as follows: First-The defendant admits the allegations set forth in the first and second subdivisions of said complaint. Second-The defendant admits that the plaintiff owns a large number of steamships--to wit, seventeen-which are actually engaged in the coasting trade, and make voyages therein along the coast of California; but alleges, upon information and belief, that only four of said steamships make voyages from any port in the State of California to any port outside thereof. Third-The defendant admits that plaintiff's steamships carry goods brought to San Francisco on through bills of lading from points outside of the State of California, some of which are, at said port of San Francisco, transferred to said steamships in the original package, and some after the original package has been opened, and thence carried by said steamships to ports and points within the State of California, and to ports and points outside thereof, as stated in subdivision four of said complaint. But in respect thereof, further answers that the freight thus carried by plaintiff, or the larger portion thereof, comes to the port of San Francisco, and no farther, on said through bill of lading, and is thence shipped by its owners, agents, or consignees, on board of plaintiff's steamships, some of which is consigned to points within the State of California, and some to points without. Admits that passengers with through tickets, and passengers without through tickets, go upon plaintiff's steamships to San Pedro, in the State of California, thence by rail and by stage to Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas; but in respect thereof, alleges that such passengers, or a large portion of them, travel on plaintiff's steamships to San Pedro, and other points within the State of California, irrespective of their destination outside of the State, just as passengers whose destination is some point within the State. Admits that freight is shipped on board of and carried by plaintiff's steamships from southern ports in California to ports in Oregon and British Columbia, and to cities east of the Rocky Mountains, on through bills of lading. Admits that all of plaintiff's steamships are enrolled and licensed, as set forth in subdivision four of the complaint herein. Admits generally the allegations of subdivision four of the complaint; but alleges, in respect thereto, that the main business of plaintiff's steamships-that is to say, more than one half of it-consists of the transportation of freight and passengers from port to port within the State of California; that such freight is composed principally of the produce and manufactures and goods of the citizens and inhabitants of the State of California consigned to citizens and inhabitants of the State of California; and that such passengers are citizens and inhabitants of the State of California, traveling from port to port within said State, on business, or for health or pleasure. Fourth-The defendant admits that under and by virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution and laws of the State of California, it claims to have the power, and it is its duty: 1. To establish maximum rates of charges for the transportation of passengers and freight carried by plaintiff on its steamships, and by all other transportation companies within the State, from all the ports to all the ports within the State of California. 2. To examine the books, records, and papers of plaintiff. 3. To hear and determine complaints against the plaintiff, and to punish it for contempt of the orders and processes of defendant, and to enforce its decisions. 4. To prescribe a uniform system of accounts to be kept by plaintiff. Fifth-And the said defendant admits that it threatens to, and will, unless legally restrained therefrom, establish maximum rates of charges for the transportation of passengers and freight carried by plaintiff, and all other transportation companies within this State, from ports within said State to ports within said State, but denies that it will or intends to establish rates of charges for the transportation of passengers or freight carried by said steamships, or any other transportation companies, from ports within said State to ports within the same; and denies that it will or intends to establish rates of charges for the transportation of passengers or freight carried by said steamships or any other transportation company, from points without the said State to points within the same; admits that it threatens to and will examine the books, records, and papers of plaintiff; will hear and determine complaints against it; will punish it for contempt and disobedience of the orders of this defendant; will enforce its decisions, and will prescribe a uniform system of accounts for plaintiff unless legally restrained; but denies that it threatens to or will examine the books, or do or attempt to do any of the acts mentioned above, except in so far as the same pertains to the regulation of the rates of charges for carrying passengers and freight by plaintiff on its said steamships from points within this State to points within the same. And the defendant further denies that if it does the acts and things threatened, as in this answer above set forth, it will cause a multiplicity of suits, or will cause irreparable or any damage to plaintiff. Wherefore, defendant prays judgment that plaintiff takes nothing by its action, and that defendant goes hence with its costs. D. L. SMOOT, District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, Solicitor. CLITUS BARBOUR, Of Counsel. |