[blocks in formation]

Dec. 30, 1915 Permission granted to construct a crossing at grade over the tracks of Southern Pacific Co., provided a temporary crossing in the vicinity is closed.

Jan. 25, 1916 Supplemental order specifying the proportion of expenses of overhead crossing to be paid by railroad company and the county.

Teb. 14, 1916 Dismissed.

Feb. 21, 1916 I Permission to construct crossing over tracks of Santa Fe Railway at grade granted.

Feb. 25, 1916 Having an accumulated surplus of $44,852,263.02, applicant is authorized to issue 248,433 shares of stock of the par value of $100 per share, to be distributed among stockholders.

Feb. 26, 1916 Permission granted to the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Colusa and Lake Railroad Co.

Mar. 3, 1916 Permission to construct undergrade crossing at Niles granted, expense to be prorated evenly between the railroad and the county.

Mar. 25, 1916 A more suitable crossing suggested than the one heretofore authorized. Prior authorization revoked and permission granted for the construction of the alternative crossing.

Mar. 25, 1916 Permission granted for the construction of K street at grade across the tracks of Southern Pacific Co., provided two other crossings are legally closed.

Mar. 25, 1916 f t Permission granted for the construction of five crossings at grade across the tracks of Inter-California Railway.

Mar. 28, 1916 Permission granted for the construction of two crossings at grade across the tracks of Pacific Electric Railway Co.

Mar. 29, 1916 The crossing proposed being in a dangerous position and residents being amply served by existing crossing, application denied.

Mar. 29, 1916 Permission granted for the construction of crossings at grade across the tracks of Santa Fe Railway and San Diego Beach Railway.

May 1, 1916 The Commission can not set aside its findings in a condemnation action when suit was filed by the city within the required sixty-day time limit, irrespective of whether or not court proceedings are advancing satisfactorily to the utility.

May 1, 1916

Permission granted for the construction of a crossing at grade over the tracks of Santa Fe Railway in town of Richfield.

May 1, 1916 ' Dismissed

[merged small][table][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][table]

APPLICATIONS.

—Continued.

Action

May 1, 1916 Permission grunted for the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Southern Pacific Co., provided an infrequently used crossing in the vicinity is closed to traffic.

May 13, 1916 Covered by another proceeding, dismissed.

June 5, 1916 Authorized to construct crossing at grade over tracks of Southern Pacific Co.

June 19, 1916 Crossing at grade across tracks of Western Pacific Railway authorized, provided an existing crossing in the vicinity is closed to traffic.

June 19, 1916 Term prescribed governing construction of a proposed high power transmission line of the city of Los Angeles across a high power transmission line of Pacific Light and Power Corp.

June 30, 1916

Permission granted for the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Southern Pacific Co. at Davis.

June 30, 1916

Permission granted for the construction of a crossing at grade across the tracks of Santa Fe Railway.

June 30, 1916 , Construction of eleven crossings over roads and highways in Tuolumne County authorized, ten of such crossings to be at grade, the other at separated grades.

June 30, 1916 Proposed crossing not necessary, denied.

June 30, 1916 i Proposed crossing not necessary, denied.

June 30, 1916

Crossing at grade across tracks of Southern Pacific Co. authorizing such crossing to be protected by automatic flagman.

APPENDIX C.

COURT PROCEEDlNGS.

The following is a summary of the court proceedings since January 1, 1911, to which the Railroad Commission has been a party. This summary includes a reference to the decisions of the Railroad Commission reviewed by the courts, and also contains a brief statement of the important principles announced in the decisions of the courts:

1. Southern Pacific Company vs. Railroad Commission, 193 Fed. 699,

decided by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, on February 7, 1912.

In this case Judge Van Fleet refused to enjoin the enforcement of the order of the Commission in the San Pedro Rate case, wherein the Commission reduced and prescribed certain class and commodity rates on freight moving between the port of San Pedro and the city of Los Angeles, in the state of California (Vol. 1, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 45).

2. Palo Alto.Gas Company vs. J. M. Eshleman et al., decided by the

Superior Court of Santa Clara County on December 13, 1912.

In this case Judge Richards refused to restrain the Commission from assuming jurisdiction in the Palo Alto Gas Rate case. The company contended that under its franchise with the city an agreement had been reached as to the rates to be charged and the manner in which they should be fixed, which contract could not be affected by the Public Utilities Act. The court held that the Public Utilities Act superseded the agreement evidenced by the franchise.

After this decision was rendered, the Commission proceeded to hear and decide the Palo Alto Gas Rate case, the decision in which is reported in Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 300.

3. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company vs. John M. Eshleman

,-t al., 166 Cal. 640, decided by the California Supreme Court on

December 20, 1913.

This case is generally referred to as the Telephone case, and is the first case in which the Public Utilities Act with its grant of enlarged powers to the Railroad Commission came before the Supreme Court. The decision discusses at length sections 22 and 23 of Article XII of the Constitution of California as amended on October 10, 1911, and the Public Utilities Act passed thereunder. The constitutionality of the Public Utilities Act, together with the enlarged jurisdiction granted to the Railroad Commission and the limited review by the courts of the decisions of the Commission is upheld.

The particular order of the Commission before the court in that case was a telephone physical connection order, directing The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company to allow to be connected with it, for the purpose of long distance service, two local telephone systems in Glenn and Tehama counties. The order was annulled by the court on the ground that it amounted to "a taking of property" in violation of the federal constitution. The order is reported in Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 104.

4. Wilmington Transportation Company vs. Railroad Commission,

166 Cal. 741, decided by the California Supreme Court on December 29,1913.

5. Wilmington Transportation Company vs. Railroad Commission,

decided by the United States Supreme Court on February 1, 1915, and reported in 236 U. S. 151; 59 L. Ed. 508. These cases presented for the first time the question whether a state could regulate the rates for transportation by vessels plying the high seas on voyages between points within the state. The Commission contended that it had jurisdiction in such a case. (Vol. 3, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 42.) The contention of the Commission was upheld by both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.

6. Tyndale Palmer vs. Railroad Commission, 167 Cal. 163, decided

by the California Supreme Court on January 20, 1914. In this case the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Railroad Commission (Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 43), dismissing the complaint of certain residents in San Diego County, asking that the Commission direct the Southern California Mountain Water Company to supply them with water. The Commission found that there was not sufficient water to supply these complainants without prejudicing the supply of existing consumers, and on this ground dismissed the complaint.

7. Del Mar Water, Light and Power Company vs. John M. Eshleman

et al., 167 Cal. 666, decided by the California Supreme Court on April 11, 1914.

In this case the Supreme Court had before it for review a decision of the Commission directing the water company to lay a pipe and serve an individual living on the outskirts of Del Mar, San Diego County, California (Vol. 2, Opinions and Orders of the Railroad Commission of California, 335). The company contended that it was not a

« PreviousContinue »