W. H. Robinson, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is the plaintiff in the foregoing complaint, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on his information or belief, and as to those matters, he believes it to be true. W. H. ROBINSON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this twenty-ninth day of February, 1888. [SEAL.] P. J. WHITE, President Railroad Commissioners. SUMMMONS. Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. W. H. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (a corporation), and SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (a corporation), Defendants. The People of the State of California send greeting to Southern Pacific Company and South Pacific Coast Railway Company, the said defendants: You are hereby required to appear and answer in writing, under oath, within fifteen days from the day of service of this summons upon you, the complaint of the above named plaintiff, W. H. Robinson, filed before and with the above entitled Board; and which said complaint is filed and proceeding instituted to obtain a decision and judgment of said Board that you have violated the provisions of Section 20, Article XII, of the Constitution of the State of California, by increasing the rates formerly lowered for the purpose of competition on monthly commutation tickets, so called, between San Francisco and Oakland and Alameda, and that you be compelled and ordered to adhere to the rates formerly established by reason of such competition for such tickets, to wit: that all such rates be fixed at not exceeding $3 per month for as many round trips as there are days in the month, and that passengers may take such trips as they see fit. Also for general relief. All of which more fully appears from said complaint on file herein, to which you are hereby referred, and a copy of which is served herewith. Given under my hand and seal of the Railroad Commissioners of the State of California, this twenty-ninth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight. V. W. GASKILL, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners. [SEAL.] I, W. P. Eldred, Bailiff of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, hereby certify that I personally served the within summons on W. V. Huntington, Secretary of the South Pacific Coast Railway Company, by delivering to him personally, in said city and county, State of California, a copy of said summons attached to a copy of the complaint. Dated at San Francisco, this twenty-ninth day of February, 1888. W. P. ELDRED, Bailiff of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of California. I, W. P. Eldred, Bailiff of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, hereby certify that I personally served the within summons on G. L. Lansing, Secretary of the Southern Pacific Company, by delivering to him personally, in said city and county, State of California, a copy of said summons attached to a copy of the complaint. Dated at San Francisco, this twenty-ninth day of February, 1888. W. P. ELDRED, Bailiff of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of California. DEMURRER. Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. W. H. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (a corporation), and SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (a corporation), Defendants.] The defendant, Southern Pacific Company (a corporation), objects and demurs to the complaint of the above named plaintiff herein filed and for grounds specified: First-That the said complaint does not state facts sufficient to authorize the proceeding or any proceeding against this defendant. Second-That the said complaint does not conform to the requirements of Section 9, Chapter LIX, Statutes of 1880. This defendant further presents and specifies the following grounds of objection and demurrer to the said complaint: Third-That it does not contain a statement of the cause of complaint in ordinary and concise language, or in such manner as to enable this defendant to answer the same intelligently. Fourth-That there is a misjoinder of parties defendant, in joining the defendant, South Pacific Coast Railway Company, as a party defendant with this defendant. Fifth-That this Board of Railroad Commissioners has no jurisdiction over the cause of action or the subject-matter stated in the complaint. Wherefore, this defendant respectfully asks for the judgment and order of this Board that this defendant should not further answer, and that the complaint and this action be dismissed. JAMES C. MARTIN, Attorney for defendant, Southern Pacific Company. DEMURRER. Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. W. H. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY corporation), and SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (a corporation), Defendants.. The defendant, South Pacific Coast Railway Company (a corporation), objects and demurs to the complaint of the above named plaintiff herein filed and for grounds speci fied: First-That the said complaint does not state facts sufficient to authorize the proceeding or any proceeding against this defendant. Second-That the said complaint does not conform to the requirements of Section 9, Chapter LIX, Statutes of 1880. This defendant further presents and specifies the following grounds of objection and demurrer to the said complaint: Third-That it does not contain a statement of the cause of complaint in ordinary and concise language, or in such manner as to enable this defendant to answer the same intelligently. Fourth-That there is a misjoinder of parties defendant in joining the defendant, Southern Pacific Company, as a party defendant with this defendant. Fifth-That this Board of Railroad Commissioners has no jurisdiction over the cause of action or the subject-matter stated in the complaint. Wherefore, this defendant respectfully asks for the judgment and order of this Board that this defendant should not further answer, and that the complaint and this action be dismissed. JAS. C. MARTIN, Attorney for defendant, South Pacific Coast Railway Company. HEARING ON DEMURRER. At meeting of Board on May 29, 1888, the hearing on demurrer in case of Robinson vs. Southern Pacific Company et al. was taken up. J. P. Langhorne appeared for plaintiff and J. C. Martin for defendants. Two petitions from the citizens of Oakland and Alameda were also filed with the Board, and which were as follows: To the honorable the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California: The undersigned (each of whom is a citizen and an assessed taxpayer of the City of Oakland, and has annexed to his signature his occupation and business address), respectfully represents: That the local train and ferry system between Oakland and San Francisco, as it is now, and since the first day of November, A.D. 1887, has been, operated by the Southern Pacific Company, with single trip, round trip, and special rates, individual, monthly, commutation tickets, interchangeable over the broad and narrow gauge lines, a choice of routes, and a train and a boat every fifteen minutes during the day, is the most desirable and beneficial that has been devised. The ferry facilities thus afforded, and rates of fare established, are entirely satisfactory, and we respectfully request that no action be taken, nor order made, by your honorable Board, which may result in a return to any former ferry service, or former issue or use of ferry tickets, but that the system and service now in operation may be permitted to continue, and become permanent without change or alteration in any respect. J. P. Langhorne introduced the following motion to strike the petitions from the files of the Board: MOTION TO STRIKE OUT. Before the Honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. W. H. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (a corporation), and SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (a corporation), Defendants. Motion to strike out two certain petitions from the files of the Board of Railroad Commissioners. Now comes W. H. Robinson, the above named plaintiff, and moves that this Board, before taking any further action in the above entitled matter, dismiss and strike from its files those two certain petitions filed with the Secretary of the Board on the tenth day of May, A. D. 1888, on behalf of the defendants herein, and purporting to be signed by certain citizens of the cities of Oakland and Alameda, respectively, and wherein and whereby this Board is urged not to reduce to former competing rates the monthly commutation pas. senger fares between the Cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and Alameda, and which reduction is contended for in this proceeding by said plaintiff. This motion is made upon the following grounds: I. That this proceeding between this plaintiff and said railroad companies can, under Section 22, Article XII, of the Constitution, and the Act of the State Legislature, approved April 15, 1880, and the amended rules of procedure, adopted by this Board February 26. A. D. 1883, be heard and determined solely under the forms of procedure and pleadings therein prescribed. II. That neither of said petitions is competent as a pleading or as evidence of the question sought to be presented. III. That neither of said petitions is in the nature of a complaint or application for relief against a railroad or other transportation company, and hence under Section 22, Article XII, of said Constitution, this Board has no jurisdiction of either of said petitions. IV. That the expressed object and purpose of each of said petitions being to influence the action of this Board in favor of the defendant railway companies, upon the issue presented in this proceeding, and regularly presented before this Board, sitting under the powers conferred by the Constitution and statute of the State, as a judicial tribunal, Sworn to try the issue according to the prescribed forms of procedure, and upon competent evidence; then each of said petitions is an impertinent, contemptuous, and insult'ing attempt corruptly to influence the action and determination of this Board in the question presented in this proceeding. V.-That it would be a useless waste of time for this plaintiff further to prosecute before this Board the question presented in this proceeding, should this Board permit either of said petitions to remain upon its files, since, should the prayer of either of said petitions be granted, such action of this Board would necessarily dispose of the entire question presented by plaintiff in this proceeding regularly instituted by him; and hence this plaintiff is entitled to know, at this time, what disposition this Board will make of said petitions. Wherefore, plaintiff's said motion to strike said petitions from the files of this Board is most respectfully submitted. MAY 29, 1888. W. H. ROBINSON, Plaintiff. The motion to strike from the files was denied by unanimous vote of the Commission, on the ground that citizens of this State were entitled to petition this Board in all transportation matters affecting their interests. The demurrers were then argued, and decision on same was reserved. On June 8, 1888, W. H. Robinson introduced petitions from citizens of Oakland and Alameda as follows: To the Honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners of California: GENTLEMEN: We, the undersigned, residents of Alameda County and holders of commutation tickets, respectfully request you to enforce your recent decision declaring passengers entitled to the full number of rides on said tickets as they see fit to take them. NAMES. COMMUTER OR RESIDENT. On September 4, 1888, Commissioner James W. Rea filed his opinion in case of Robinson vs. Southern Pacific Company et al., as follows: OPINION OF COMMISSIONER REA. Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. W. H. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (a corporation), and SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (a corporation), Defendants. The plaintiff is a resident of the City of Alameda, and the defendants are railroad corporations, owning local ferry lines operated by boats and trains between San Francisco, Oakland, and Alameda, and which are commonly known and designated as the broad gauge and narrow gauge lines. This controversy involved the use of individual, special rate, monthly commutation tickets over these lines, and in various forms; upon the complaint in this action, and upon other similar complaints by the same plaintiff, it has been long pending, and has received much attention from the Board. The plaintiff claims to represent a large number of the citizens of Oakland and Alameda, and he asks this Board to make an order and judgment which will in effect compel the defendants to return to a former ferry service and issue and use of tickets, under which the purchaser of a commutation ticket was permitted to ride over the single line for which the ticket was sold, once or oftener daily, until the number of trips called for by the ticket was exhausted. Under this former ferry system and service the commutation tickets were good only over the single line by which the tickets were issued, and were not honored for passage by the other line. The result was that the holders of these tickets who desired ferry transportation were compelled to wait for the train and boat called for by their tickets or to pay full fare on the other line. Since the controversy was first brought before the Board, the railroad companies, the defendants herein, have, at the request of the citizens of Oakland and Alameda, made much joint provisions in the alternate starting of boats and trains, and in the use of single trip, round trip, and special rate individual monthly commutation tickets, that a train and boat start every fifteen minutes during the day, and the tickets over one line are honored for passage by the other; but with the limitation upon the individual monthly commutation ticket that it shall be honored for passage for one trip daily during the month for which it is issued. The citizens of Oakland and Alameda have thus been provided with a boat and train every fifteen minutes during the day, and interchangeable tickets, with a choice of routes, over the broad and narrow gauge lines. That the result of these concessions is highly satisfactory to the people of Oakland and Alameda, has been shown by formal expressions of the Boards of Trade of the respective cities, and by the petitions of many hundreds of their citizens. These petitions, which are authenticated by affidavit, represent in express terms that the local train and ferry system between San Francisco and Oakland and Alameda, as it is now, and since the first day of November, 1887, has been, operated with single trip, round trip, and special rate individual monthly commutation tickets, interchangeable over the broad and narrow gauge lines, a choice of routes, and a train and boat every fifteen minutes during the day, is the most desirable and beneficial that has been devised; that the ferry facilities thus afforded and rates of fare established are entirely satisfactory; and petitioners request that no action be taken, nor order made, by this Board, which may result in a return to any former ferry service or former issue or use of ferry tickets, but that the system and service now in operation may be permitted to continue and become permanent without change or alteration in any respect. Among the signers of these petitions are all of the members of the City Council of the City of Oakland, the principal city officers, and the members of the Board of Supervisors, and the principal county officers residing in that city, and the prominent bankers, merchants, business men, and real estate owners; also, all the members of the Board of Trustees of the City of Alameda, the principal city officers of that city, and the prominent business men, merchants, bankers, and real estate owners. I am satisfied that these petitioners know better than the Board can know what is and what is not for the best interests of the communities in which they live, and of which they constitute so large and prominent a part, and whose material interests are directly involved in the controversy. A counter petition has been filed, but it does not purport to contradict the statement of the prior petition, "that the local train and ferry system, as now operated, is the best and most beneficial that has been devised," and besides it has been to such an extent impeached by the affidavits of some of its own signers, and otherwise, that any effect it might have had is greatly impaired. This controversy has been before the Commission at various times. When it was commenced it was considered a matter affecting the rights of commuters only, a body constituting a large and respectable portion of the citizens of Oakland and Alameda, and whose rights appeared to be assailed by an arbitrary action on the part of the railroad companies. Prior to the present showing the railroad companies made no defense, but contented themselves with objecting to the jurisdiction of this Board, insisting that the Commission had no right to attempt to adjust any of the matters complained of against them, and declining and refusing to enter into an investigation of the alleged charges, or to submit themselves to the order or process of the Board. Under this state of facts I then decided in favor of the plaintiff, treating the conduct of the railroad companies as contumacious, and their refusal to answer and enter into an investigation of the matter as a confession (for all purposes of the judgment) that the plaintiff's complaint was not only true, but that he and those he represented should have the relief asked for. I did not think that the conduct of the railroad companies before the Board-their reliance solely upon the objections of a want of jurisdiction, their declination to appear and investigate the matter-entitled them to any consideration, and if the case now stood under the same circumstances I would decide as I did then. I refer to this at length because it is insisted that the Board is precluded by its former order from making any other or different disposition of the matter. The force of this objection is lost when we take into consideration the fact that the present hearing has been the only one which has been had upon a full and fair investigation of the controversy upon its merits. I think it has been clearly developed at the present hearing that this contest affects rights and interests larger than those of the commuters, and which are equally entitled to respect and protection. It affects the interests of the owners of real estate in Oakland and Alameda, and of the business men of those cities, and of that larger class of local passengers who travel upon single trip and round trip tickets, all of whom are as directly interested as are the commuters in the frequency of trips, and in the character and quality of the ferry service, and it is evident from the data furnished that, as it stands now, the ferry service of these defendants is the cheapest public ferry service in the world. It has become apparent that we cannot give to the commuters all the privileges they ask for without endangering and injuring the privileges of these other and larger classes, whose interest it is to keep up the highest standard and quality of ferry service, and the greatest facilities for availing themselves of it, and whose rights at the hands of this Board are entitled to equal consideration with those of the commuters. The Constitution confers upon the Board a large discretion in its action, which is not to be hampered by the technical points and strict legal forms which surround a Court. In so far as it can lawfully be done, this Board should comply with the wishes of the people most interested in the question presented, and with a view of securing the greatest good to the greatest number. As it manifestly appears that the present ferry system and service is, in the opinion of the citizens of Oakland and Alameda, most interested and best qualified to judge, and from the evidence adduced entirely satisfactory and the most desirable and beneficial that has been devised, it is my judgment that we should not interfere with it by compelling a return to the former system of operation. For these reasons I hold that the present ferry system and service between San Francisco and Oakland and Alameda, with the present rates and privileges in the use of tickets, should not be disturbed, and that this action should not be any longer entertained, but should be dismissed. JAMES W. REA, DECISION. On September 5, 1888, Commissioner James W. Rea offered the following resolution: Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of California. W. H. ROBINSON, VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (a Corporation) ET AL. It is ordered that the demurrer to the complaint in this action be sustained and the action dismissed. The resolution was adopted on following vote: Commissioners Abbott and Rea, aye; Commissioner White, no. On September 14, 1888, a petition for rehearing in the case of Robinson vs. Southern Pacific Company et al., was filed by plaintiff, which is as follows: |