Bridgford-Cunningham Company vs. McCloud River Railroad Co. In the Matter of Alleged Discriminations by Southern Pacific Co.. In the Matter of Alleged Discriminations by Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe PRELIMINARY REPORT FILED DECEMBER 14, 1908; COMPLETE REPORT COVERING DELAYED STATISTICAL MATTER HEREWITH, FEBRUARY 18, 1909. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, To His Excellency, JAMES N. GILLETT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. Governor of California. SIR Referring to our preliminary report to you under date of December 14, 1908, in which we stated that the delay in submitting our complete report was occasioned by the failure of some of the railroad companies to file with this commission their statistical report, we now have the honor of submitting to you, this, our final and complete report for the fiscal year 1907-8. It seems to us, if your Excellency please, that this report would not be complete without calling your attention to that which we fully realize you are cognizant of, namely, the provisions of the Constitution, as follows: Section 21 of Article XII of the Constitution forbids discrimination, but provides no penalty, it being presumed that the Legislature would provide for that, as it is given the authority to do so under Section 22 of Article XII, which provides that "The Legislature shall pass all laws necessary to the carrying cut of this chapter. No such action has ever been taken by the Legislature, and Section 21, Article XII of the Constitution, therefore stands as inoperative, for the reason that no penalty is provided. While we need statutory enactment at this time defining discrimination, and placing the Commission in a better position to guard the interests of the shippers, such enactment will not do away with the necessity for a constitutional amendment providing a penalty for discrimination, and clearly interpretating the definition of the words "establish" and “conform” as used in Section 22, Article XII of the Constitution, if we are to accept as definite the significant language of Chief Justice Beatty in the case of Edson vs. Southern Pacific, 144 California, by which he clearly intimates that under the provisions of the Constitution the Commission has the authority to establish maximum rates only. 66 We also beg to submit for your consideration the following suggestions, which, if adopted and enacted by the Legislature into a statute, would result in enlarging the duties and powers of this Commission and enable it to perform services for the people of the State of California which the framers of the Constitution undoubtedly intended it to perform. It should be the duty of this Commission to investigate, or cause to be investigated by the proper representative of their office, every railroad |