Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:45:56.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Businessmen and the Regulation of Railroads and Public Utilities in California During the Progressive Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Mansel Griffiths Blackford
Mansel Griffiths Blackford
Affiliation:
Doctoral Candidate in History, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historians of the Progressive Era have recently focused much attention on the role played by businessmen in the reform legislation of that period. Mr. Blackford's study considers this topic in the case of a significant portion of the California business community.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1970 , pp. 307 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kolko, Gabriel, Triumph of Conservatism (New York, 1963)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert, Businessmen and Reform (Cambridge, 1962).Google Scholar

2 Mowry, George, The California Progressives (Berkeley, 1951)Google Scholar; Nash, Gerald, State Government and Economic Development (Berkeley, 1964)Google Scholar; Olin, Spencer Jr., California's Prodigal Sons (Berkeley, 1968).Google Scholar

3 United States Bureau of Corporations, Report on the Transportation of Petroleum (Washington, 1906), 19.Google Scholar

4 California Commonwealth Club Transactions (San Francisco, 1908), III, 364; Sacramento Bee, October 3, 4, 5, 1907, February 17, 1908. (Hereafter cited as Bee).

5 Report of the Railroad Commission of the State of California, 1908 (Sacramento, 1909), 50–61. (Hereinafter cited as C. H. C).

6 Report of the Attorney-General of California, 1906–1908 (Sacramento, 1909), 13.

7 Los Angeles Herald, January 25, 1911; Merchants Association Review, July, 1910.

8 Wilson, Neil and Taylor, Frank, Southern Pacific (New York, 1952), 120.Google Scholar

9 Merchants Association Review, July, November, December, 1910, February, March, July, 1911; San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Annual Report, 1908, 1909, 1913.

10 San Francisco Merchants Exchange, Annual Report, 1908, p. 9.

11 San Francisco Chronicle, January 3, 6, 1909 (Hereafter cited as Chronicle); California Fruit News, January 23, 1909.

12 California Fruit News, January 23, 1909.

13 Chronicle, January 6, 1909.

14 Fresno Republican, February, 1909 (Hereafter cited as Republican).

15 Bee, January 14, 1909.

16 Republican, March 5, 1909.

17 ibid, January 26, 1909.

18 Chronicle, January 9, 1909.

19 Unfortunately, no minutes of public hearings of the senate or assembly committees during the years under investigation were recorded or preserved. For reports of the Senate Committee on Corporations hearings on the proposed railroad measures, see Bee, February 16, 1909.

20 Ibid.

21 Bee, February 10, 1909.

22 Bee, February 26, 1909; Hichborn, Franklin, Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909 (San Francisco, 1909), 133.Google Scholar

23 Bee, March 6, 1909.

24 California Fruit News, January 22, December 17, 1910.

25 Campaign speech by Hiram Johnson, Pacific Outlook, March 19, 1910.

26 Bee, January 4, 1911.

27 Bee, January 26, 1911; Pacific Outlook, January 26, 1911; Republican, January 1, 1911.

28 Bee, January 25, 1911.

29 From report of Interstate Commerce Commission reprinted in: California Common wealth Club Transactions (San Francisco, 1908), III, 364 and Bee, October 3, 4, 5, 1907 and February 17, 1908.

30 Wüliam Sproul, “The Public Interest in Transportation,” address to the Traffic Club of Chicago, February 25, 1915 (Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley). Though delivered after the passage of California regulatory legislation and dealing with federal legislation, this speech indicates a frame of mind on the part of railroad leaders which may have been influential in the passage of California legislation.

31 Bee, January 25, 1911.

32 Recent interviews with former Progressives connected with public utility regulation indicate that public utilities opposed certain specifics in the Public Utilities Act. See especially: “Max Thelen: California Progressive, Railroad Commissioner and Attorney,” 26–27, 40. Of some interest is: “Herbert C. Jones on California Government and Public Issues,” 51. However, these interviews fail to show that the utilities opposed the principle of state regulation. Indeed, as this paper shows, they worked for it. Transcripts of both interviews are available at the Bancroft Library at the University of California at Berkeley.

33 Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, 1909, p. 23.

34 Ibid., 1910, 506.

35 Ibid., 287–288.

36 Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine, February 10, 1910.

37 Report of the State Railroad Commission, 1911–1912 (Sacramento, 1913), 19; Thelen, Max, “The Public Utilities Act and its Relation to the Public,” p. 1, reprinted in Public Utilities Act of California (San Francisco, 1912)Google Scholar; Max Thelen, “Report on Leading Railroad and Public Service Corporations” (Sacramento, 1911), 97–98.

38 Bee, December 7, 1911; Chronicle, December 7, 1911.

39 San Francisco Examiner, December 8, 1911.

40 C. R. C., 1911–1912, 7.

41 Pacific Telephone Magazine, February 1912, p. 5.

42 Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine, March 1912, 392; Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, 1911, p. 30.

43 Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, 1912, 245–247.

44 Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine, March, 1912, 395.

45 See, for instance, articles in Pacific Gas and Electric Magazine, August, October, 1913.

46 Bee, March 12, 1915.

47 C. R. C., 1909, p. 9; C. R. C., 1911–1912, p. 10; C. R. C., 1913–1914, p. 5.

48 Thelen, Max, “A Just and Scientific Basis for the Establishment of Public Utility Rates with Particular Attention to Land Values,” California Law Review, II (November, 1913), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also: Eshleman, John, “Control of Public Utilities in California,” California Law Review, II (January, 1914), 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Decisions of the Railroad Commission of the State of California, I, Case 125, pp. 298–303. (Hereafter cited as Decisions.) Transcripts of public hearings on cases 1–400 have, unfortunately, been destroyed. For a guide to policy-making decisions, see Digest to Decisions compiled by the railroad commission in 1928. (Hereafter cited as Decisions.)

50 Decisions, II, Case 288, pp. 300–319.

51 Decisions, I, Case 115, pp. 45–51.

52 Ibid., 50.

53 San Francisco Bulletin, March 28, 1912; Decisions, I, 95–97.

54 Decisions, II, Application 373, pp. 584–588.

55 Decisions, II, Case 223, pp. 83–84.

56 John Eshleman, speech before the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Activities, August 6, 1914, p. 3.

57 “Transcript of Public Hearing before Railroad Commission on Application 844,” 6.

58 Decisions, II, Application 844, pp. 748–74.

59 Max Thelen, “Southern Pacific-Central Pacific Dissolution Case.” (Available at Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.)

60 Among them were the Home Industry League of California, the Canners' League of California, the Oakland Commercial Club, and the chambers of commerce of Fresno, Stockton, and San Francisco. See: Bulletin, February 1, 1914 (House organ of the Southern Pacific); San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Activities, April 2, 1914.

61 California Outlook, January 13, 1914.

62 Ibid.

63 Herrin, William, “Government Regulation of Railroads,” California Law Review, II (January, 1914), 89.Google Scholar