# The New York Times/1916/11/22/Urges Quick Action in 8-Hour Case

URGES QUICK ACTION IN 8-HOUR CASE
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Nov. 21.—The fight of the railroads of the United States against the Adamson eight-hour law was brought to a sudden issue today by a motion filed by the Government in the United States District Court here, which it is expected will result in a decision on the constitutionality of the law by the Supreme Court of the United States before Jan. 1, when the law is to go into effect.
“Prolonged, unnecessary and scattered litigation should, if possible, be avoided, otherwise injury may result to the public and the railroads and their employes,” the Government says on its motion.
The Government’s motion, made by Frank Hagerman, as special counsel, was directed against Alexander New and Henry C. Ferris, receivers for the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad, and embodied two distinct requests of the court, as follows:
1. The Government asks an immediate decision on the injunction petition filed by the receivers for the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad, in which the Adamson eight-hour law was attacked as unconstitutional, and an order required forbidding its enforcement. The Government contends that the injunction petition should be dismissed because the law is constitutional.
2. Should the law be held unconstitutional, the Government asks that the court direct the receivers for the railroad to join the Government in getting the case advanced immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States for final decision.
May Give Decision Today.
Judge William C. Hook, sitting in the case, took the motion under advisement and announced that he would render a decision tomorrow.
While the Government’s action was taken in the case of only one railroad company, every railway system in the country is affected and eventually may be a participant. Judge Hook, from the bench, said that if the motion were granted, he would require the receivers of the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf to invite the legal representatives of all the railroads in the United States to take part in the proceedings before the highest court.
Should the law be held constitutional by Judge Hook, it is expected that the railroads will appeal. In any case, the Government plans to have the constitutionality of the law before the Supreme Court when that tribunal reconvenes on Dec. 4 and to urge that it be advanced for immediate hearing.
Federal Court Controls the Road.
Action in the case was taken on the injunction petition of the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad rather than on similar petitions of scores of other railroads throughout the United States because the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf is in receivership and under the direction of the Federal court. This enabled the Government to ask the co-operation of the railroads in obtaining a final decision of the case before Jan. 1. This assistance can be ordered by the court, and, as indicated by Judge Hook, will be so ordered if he decides to grant the motion. Had the Government proceeded against a railroad not in receivership, it was pointed out by a member of the Government counsel, the railroad might have chosen to combat the law through various legal manoeuvres which would have delayed the final decision indefinitely.
Like many other injunction proceedings filed by many railroads, the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf’s action against the Adamson law contended that it was unconstitutional because it deprived the railroads of their property without due process of law and compelled them to pay large sums of money to employes without receiving anything in return.
The decision on this point tomorrow will be watched eagerly by lawyers and railroad interests generally, but it will have no binding effect outside of the Western Missouri Judicial District, and, whichever way it goes, will be nullified by appeal action to be filed immediately in the Supreme Court.
“There is no use to be excited about this action,” Mr. Hagerman said today. “It is simply an action to advance the case quickly to the Supreme Court, which will be the final arbiter in the case.”
The same view was expressed by Arthur Miller, attorney for the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf receivers, who said that the only thing to be done was to await the Judge’s decision.