, 1874-08-10
RAILROAD NEWS.
Continuation Of the Arguments in
tho Madison Suits,
nIcsSrs. Cook AMI Lawrence On tie
Part Of tho Railroads.
Opposition Of Some Western Railroads
10 the Saratoga Commission.
Other Important Freight Matters.

Other Important Freight N1attors..
THE WISCONSIN LAW.
Srtc:ul Dfspntch to 3hc Chtcdao Tribune.
ARGUMENTS IN THE INJUNCTION Bul1s Ar MApl"
EoN.
MADISON, Wis, Aug. Sat 10 O'Clock the Hon.
B. g. Cook, General Solicitor for tho Chicago &
Northwestern Railway, opened the caAo for that
Company. Tho Chicago Il Northwestern Rail-
why operated lines in Wisconsin not ownad by
the Company. Tho complaint filed by tho Attor-
noy.Gonerat, charging tho Company with vioat-
ing tic Potter law, nadeno specific charges, aud
atltlucod no proof that tho law was not being
uboyod on tho loasod limos; wliorcaB tho injunc-
tion applied for wns intended to oovor Ill llnca
operated by tho Company in Wisconsin. nofor-
ring to Atr. OrtonB allegations Of corrupt mau-
ngonlent, In his opening orntton for tho states
Mr. Cook Batd lio could lardly laye supposed tho
counsel would haYo boon guilty OF tho improprt-
ETY. OF attempting to sway tho judgment Of this
Court with matters onttroly foreign to this suit
and which, besides being irroloyaut to the COM
plaint, wcro untrue. It Inns boco1no a popular
catcllword TO say tho railroada designed to oon-
troll themselves, independent Of tho State. Such
tHoAEAk uNu ASfui cAtD4tA LILY 4AAHea VI tuo
Northwestern managers. They acknowledged tho
right Of tho State to control them to the 8amo
extent tint 1t controls its citizons, mud
ONLY ASH TO STAND UPON AN EQUALITY WITH
EVERY OTHER CITIZEN
of the State. No business can bo carried Oh
whcro tho price OF wareB offered for snlo lis to
be fixed by tho great body of purchasers In
tho case Of railways, tho prico is attempted to
bo tlxod by mon who do not understand tho elc-
monts ontering into the cost Of doing busincsa.
Whatever Jurisdiction this Court had 1t derived
from, tho State Constitution and this Cannot bo
added to, o1tol,dod, or restricted by statute.
C cn!of-Juatce . Ryan s'sgouted tint :he , orGnt
tion for mnndanluB md ccrtiorari, and tho
Supreme Court had mado q rllo that except III
ereciat csHos this Court will not net, but will
lcavo the parties to their ro1nedy In the Circuit
Court.
Justice Lyon Baid this Court Ind mover made
rnic III quo warra',to casos TINT previous notion
MuB necessary, aud such might bo tho case III
thoHo proceedings.
Chlef-Justico Notwithstanding that the Potter
law is va1ld that ts rates arc reasonable, aud tho
Stalo hIs IN Interest in itH enforcement, what do
you claim would be MI adequate romedy?
Alr. Cook-Tho Slate haa h1od tho remedy In
tho net.
Judge nyan-I cannot find in Sec. Of the Law
tint my pcnnlty goes to tho State. It soens to
MO that suit of quo warranto to forfeit the
charter Of tho Company. would not be an ade-
1lato remedy at law for tho State. Tho State iB
Interested to naiuan tho railroads. and ths 1Ail-
roads arc Interested to ho maintained. Therefore
d suit to forfeit tlor charters would not answer
tho purpose OF this suit. Tho doubt III my mind
In, Wllether writ OF nlandnmus il MI adequate
remedy Tor tliB c1ao. Tho State Ia necessary to
these railroads, al!l
THE RAILROADS ARE NECESSARY TO THE STATE,
Even thnngh tho Companies mny bo disregarding
Pubic INV TO the injury OF tho whole State,
ahn tho Attorney-tionoral may dcHlro to euro tho
evil will Il 10 !" n',re to forfeit the charter Of tho
Company, -.
Gen sInith-IAat bega the question. Tho
people qro interested III TINS question, not to
nave thss doi'o a. aii. Ihelo y no allegation
lSas rSa1 run at as oss aee 10 n'ao Fl"
y, Jhuee hyan1:1 TOO nave TO neG tho question
tilat lt ID val1a, lnst !aw. l have also to beg
mo question tnat the state At large represented
by the Attoriloy-G LAS an interoHt to eil-
1ofcG theae rates. and simply put tho queation
"nethef the proeeod!hE ny quo Watranto was ~
adequate remody a. las, or whether tharo would
Do any remedy a remedy at law might ox1st,
DUE might ilot 10 0 IN adequate remedy Ut law. /
Judge iyan-l do not tlltik it Is critical. It
may may rot 10 tAo interest o. tle Stato TO enforce
NV, nut u may Do al Injury 70 tno 6tata TO 1or-
fel. tue e., eilnrter;
Gen. 5nlth-Cau 1t, by any possibility, be the
intoroHt Of tho people to enforce law that would
Destroy TIC very thlle they "antt
Judge Ryan-f father and son hayo a dlfll-
ealtv, tho laIaor my nave M tAe remedy OF turn-
ang lne aon % ont o. ueoIs ont io may haye very
stionE interest ~ reforming linn without turn-
Jug MN t out or doors.
zen: oin'th-very true; nat tho Old man
might 10 ~ tho wrong after nit.
Judge RyaIl-les; that goes Oh the aasunp-
tn tl'St aoang Ame,lca IL always n tho right.
a!T. Gook r9ilafaoa that shat polnt was not
Oh NIB bsle1. Ho then argned
TIE RIGHT OF TRIAL ny suNY,
clting the Constitution, which says tile right Of
tt,al by Jury Bllnll totnain inyionte, and shnll
extent! to alt casca at law without regard to tho
amount in controversy. Tic ro,nody against o
which exercised any franchise, lib
erty, or privilege, Or transacted any business !
not h1'tl1orizad by ia chnrtor was by writ OF quo
warrnnto, md tho only ulodo OF enforcing q
Statute 70 regulate the modo Of conducting rail-
road business was to enforce the penalties pro-
yded III tue statute, In either Of which cases tho
would bo entitled to trial by jury, and
would hayo been 80 entitled under tho Co,,sti,1-
t!ou ut my time before tho statute was passed. |
Now, tho simple question was, whether tile Log