upon the company making the proper showing in accordance with the agreement and satisfactory to the trustees of the notes; and Whereas a public hearing has been held and it appearing to this Commission that applicant's request should be granted, It is hereby ordered that the order of this Commission dated July 18, 1914 (Decision No. 1675), be amended to the end that the authority therein granted to the applicant to issue three-year notes in the sum of $240,500.00 shall apply to such notes as shall have been issued on or before April 1, 1916. It is further ordered that this Commission's order dated July 18, 1914 (Decision No. 1675), and any supplemental orders modifying or amending said order of July 18, 1914, shall remain in full force and effect, except as the same may be amended or modified by this supplemental order. The foregoing supplemental order is hereby approved and ordered filed as the supplemental order of the Railroad Commission of the State of California. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 15th day of September, 1915. DECISION No. 2756. PACIFIC IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN COMPANY ET AL. FOR APPROVAL OF JOINT TRACKAGE AGREEMENT AT VERNON, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Application No. 1859. Decided September 17, 1915. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. This is an application, filed August 28, 1915, on the part of Southern Pacific Company for the approval by the Commission of a certain contract, dated May 13, 1915, a copy of which accompanies the application, between Southern Pacific Company, Southern Pacific Railroad Company and The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, covering the joint use by the parties to the contract of certain spur tracks which serve the Griffin Wheel Company in the city of Vernon, county of Los Angeles, California; said spur tracks being shown on a map attached to the said contract and made a part thereof. These spur tracks belong in part to the first two above named companies and in part to the third named company, and, according to the contract, are to be leased; the tracks of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company to be leased to Southern Pacific Company and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and vice versa. The respective ownership of these tracks and real property, and the considerations to be paid for the use thereof, are set forth in the said contract. This application is made under section 51a of the Public Utilities Act of the State of California, which requires the approval of the Commission of a lease of property of a railroad corporation necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public. ORDER. It appearing to the Commission that this is not a case in which a public hearing is necessary; that the terms of the contract, in so far as leases are concerned, are reasonable and equitable; that the contract contains nothing detrimental to the public interests; that the arrangements covered by the contract are mutually agreeable to the contracting parties, and that the application should be granted, and It is hereby ordered that said application be, and the same is hereby, granted in so far as this Commission's consent is necessary. The foregoing opinion and order are hereby approved and ordered filed as the opinion and order of the Railroad Commission of the State of California. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 17th day of September, 1915. Decision No. 2757, grade crossing; not printed. See end of volume. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF A. L. HARRIS FOR Application No. 1863. Decided September 17, 1915. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The subject-matter of this application having been informally adjusted, It is hereby ordered that this application be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 17th day of September, 1915. DECISION NO. 2759. ANDREW BERGLEY ET AL. vs. LANKERSHIM LAND COMPANY. Case No. 637. Decided September 17, 1915. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Complainants having on September 3, 1915, made written request to this Commission that this procedure be dismissed, It is hereby ordered that this complaint be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 17th day of September, 1915. DECISION No 2760. CABRILLO CLUB ET AL. VS. THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. Case No. 796. Decided September 17, 1915. Complainants herein petition the Commission to compel defendant company to reconstruct and maintain in operation that portion of its line now abandoned, running from Temecula, Riverside County, to Fallbrook, San Diego County, via Temecula Canyon, which complaint is subsequently amended to provide an alternate route via Rainbow Valley. Complainants contend, among other things, that the abandonment of this line has worked considerable hardship and caused considerable monetary loss to jobbers and others in San Diego and throughout the district traversed by such road. Also that predecessors of defendant, when such road was first proposed, obtained from property owners, considerable grants and bonuses aggregating between four and five million dollars on consideration that such road would be built and operated, title to which grants defendant has succeeded to. Defendant contends that the road was originally substantially built, but that continual washouts kept maintenance costs at such a high figure as to make it practically imposssible to operate. That trade relations between San Diego and territory affected by this line has not been seriously retarded, nor is the proposed traffic to be obtained if the line were to be placed in operation again anywhere near as large as estimated by complainants. It also protests the Commission's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. After a review of the evidence tendered: That the grants of money and property made by citizens of San Diego were made with the express understanding that a connection line would be constructed through Temecula Canyon and that such a line was built and operated for a number of years, developing considerable business between various points thereon and San Diego, and that when abandoned considerable injury was done to jobbing interests of San Diego and the development of territory along the line of railway seriously retarded. That the re-establishment of railroad service between San Diego and Temecula, either via Temecula Canyon or Rainbow Valley, is required by public necessity and will greatly benefit the country affected, and that it is not unreasonable to require such construction as the prospective traffic will justify defendant in making such expenditures as are necessary to establish such connection. Held, defendant directed to prepare and file, within ninety days, for the approval of the Commission, plans and estimates covering the construction and operation of either of the two proposed connecting routes, and to construct and operate same within twelve months after the approval of such plans. Allen Brant and W. C. Wilde, for Complainants. E. W. Camp and U. T. Clotfelter, for Defendant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. DEVLIN, Commissioner. In this complaint, filed March 29, 1915, the Commission is asked to make its order directing the defendant to reconstruct and repair the line of railroad between the town of Temecula, in Riverside County, and the town of Fallbrook, in San Diego County, and to connect by a line of standard gauge railroad its terminals at those two points; also to establish and maintain passenger and freight service over this line and to give such other relief as may seem proper and necessary. The complaint is made by a number of civic and commercial organizations representing a large part of the population of the city of San Diego and the affected territory outside of the city, and is signed by the Cabrillo Club, San Diego Realty Board, Federated Improvement Clubs, Chamber of Commerce of Oceanside, California; Chamber of Commerce of Northern San Diego County, Lake Elsinore Commercial Club, Wholesalers Board of Trade and Credit Association of San Diego, and the Manufacturers' Association of San Diego. In addition to these bodies, the complaint contains the signatures of a number of private persons from San Diego and other places. Petitions on file supporting the complaint from the towns of Oceanside, San Luis Rey, Bonsall, and Fallbrook alone contain 196 names. During the course of the proceedings before the Commission other commercial and civic organizations and individuals became interested in the case and took their stand with the complainants. The reconstruction of this railroad is asked for the following principal reasons: First. That the line was in operation between the years 1884 and 1891, and was built between the years 1880 and 1884 by the California Southern Railroad Company, a predecessor of the defendant in this case, largely with donations in the form of money and land, several million dollars in value, contributed by several hundred citizens of the city of San Diego and its vicinity. The complainants lay particular stress upon the moral issues involved and upon the moral obligation of the defendant to re-establish service over the abandoned line, and state that "said land and money were given in and with the understanding and agreement of the respective parties, giving and receiving, that the said railroad would be built, operated and maintained from the said city of San Diego by way of said Temecula Canyon route, and that there would thus be established and maintained at the said city of San Diego the terminal of a railroad running by said route to the eastern and central part of the said State of California, and thence to the central and eastern part of the United States." Second. That defendant has succeeded to and become the owner of the California Southern Railroad Company and of all its properties, including the bonus and subsidy as alleged in the complaint, and now owns and controls this entire property. Third. That the line, being cheaply and improperly built, according to the complainants, was washed out in 1891 between Temecula and Fallbrook, a distance of about 12 miles, and never rebuilt. San Diego and its vicinity, in consequence, have no railroad connection with the country north of Fallbrook and Temecula, except by way of Orange, in Orange County, a roundabout and indirect route, adding about 75 miles to the distance of the original and direct line. As a result all trade relations between San Diego and vicinity and the territory tributary to the defendant's railroad from Temecula north as far as Highgrove, Riverside County, has been destroyed and rendered impracticable. Fourth. That the city of San Diego was originally the natural outlet for a large portion of the country which would be reached by the rebuilding of the line under consideration. This traffic and business since the abandonment of the line has been forced away from the city of San Diego, to the great financial loss and detriment of both the back country and the city of San Diego. The country so cut off, according to the complaint, includes the towns of San Jacinto, Elsinore, Temecula and Perris, in Riverside County, with the valleys surrounding these communities comprising together a territory of about 1,600 square miles of very fertile land, the larger portion of which is well |